# How to Estimate Revision Time ## Quick Answer - Estimate revision time by breaking the work into task types, then assigning realistic hourly ranges to each task based on the manuscript's condition and the journal's requirements. - Build a personalized revision schedule using a downloadable spreadsheet template that tracks hours per task, deadlines, and progress. - The main limitation is that estimates are only as accurate as your understanding of the reviewer comments, so read all feedback fully before committing to a timeline. ## Understanding the Revision Process Manuscript revision after peer review is a structured process that requires careful planning. The time needed depends on the scope of requested changes, the current state of your manuscript, and the specific requirements of the target journal. Authors who underestimate revision time often miss deadlines or submit incomplete responses, which can delay publication or lead to additional review rounds. The revision process typically involves several distinct phases. First, you must read and interpret every reviewer comment. Second, you need to plan the response strategy, deciding which changes to make and which to contest with evidence. Third, you execute the actual revisions to the manuscript text, figures, tables, and supplementary materials. Fourth, you prepare a detailed response letter that addresses each comment. Finally, you verify that all changes are consistent and that the revised manuscript meets the journal's formatting requirements. Each of these phases requires different amounts of time depending on the complexity of the comments and your familiarity with the material. A revision that only requires minor text edits will take far less time than one that requires new experiments, additional data analysis, or complete rewriting of major sections. ## At a Glance The table below provides a general framework for estimating revision time based on the type and scope of reviewer comments. These ranges are starting points for planning, not fixed rules. | Revision Task Type | Estimated Time Range | Key Factors Affecting Time | | --- | --- | --- | | Minor text edits and formatting | 4 to 10 hours | Number of comments, clarity of requested changes, familiarity with the manuscript | | Clarifying existing data or methods | 8 to 20 hours | Need to re-examine raw data, rewrite methods sections, update supplementary materials | | Additional data analysis | 15 to 40 hours | Complexity of analysis, software skills, need for new statistical tests | | New experiments or data collection | 40 to 120 hours | Experiment duration, equipment access, sample availability, analysis time | | Full manuscript rewrite of major sections | 20 to 50 hours | Scope of rewriting, need to rework the argument, integration with existing text | These ranges assume that the author has regular access to their data, software, and any necessary laboratory resources. The actual time will vary based on individual circumstances, the number of reviewers, and the depth of the requested changes. ## Core Principles of Time Estimation ### Break the Revision into Discrete Tasks The most reliable way to estimate revision time is to break the entire process into discrete tasks. A task is a single unit of work with a clear start and end point. Examples include rewriting the methods section, creating a new figure, or drafting a response to a specific reviewer comment. When you break the revision into tasks, you can estimate each one separately and then sum the estimates to get a total. This approach works because it forces you to think about the specific work involved instead of the vague idea of revising a manuscript. It also makes it easier to track progress during the revision period. If you know that the methods section rewrite should take 10 hours, you can check your progress against that estimate. ### Use Historical Data from Past Revisions Your own experience is the best predictor of how long a revision will take. If you have revised manuscripts before, review your records of how long those revisions took. Look at the types of changes you made and compare them to the current revision. This historical data is more reliable than generic estimates because it reflects your writing speed, your familiarity with the material, and your typical work patterns. If you do not have historical data, start with the ranges in the At a Glance table and adjust them based on your specific situation. For example, if you are a slow writer, add time to the writing tasks. If you are very familiar with the data, you may reduce the time for data analysis tasks. ### Account for the Reviewer's Perspective The reviewer comments are the starting point for your time estimate. Read every comment carefully before you begin planning. Some comments may be straightforward requests for clarification, while others may require substantial new work. The time required to address a comment depends on the nature of the request, not the number of words in the comment. A short comment that asks for a new statistical test can take more time than a long comment that asks for a minor clarification. When you read the comments, classify each one by the type of work it requires. This classification becomes the basis for your task list and your time estimates. ## Practical Workflow for Estimating Revision Time ### Step 1: Read All Reviewer Comments Thoroughly Before you can estimate the time, you must understand the full scope of the revision. Read all reviewer comments, including those from the editor. Make notes about the type of change each comment requires. Do not start writing or editing until you have a complete picture of the work. This step is essential because it prevents you from underestimating the total work. If you only read the first few comments and start planning, you may miss a major request that appears later in the review. The time you spend reading and classifying comments is part of the revision time, so include it in your estimate. ### Step 2: Classify Each Comment by Task Type Create a list of all the comments and assign each one to a task type. The task types from the At a Glance table are a useful starting point. For example, a comment that asks for a sentence clarification is a minor text edit. A comment that asks for a new statistical test is additional data analysis. A comment that asks for a new experiment is new data collection. This classification step forces you to think about the actual work involved. It also helps you to identify comments that require multiple tasks. For example, a comment that asks for a new experiment may also require additional data analysis and a rewrite of the results section. Each of these is a separate task with its own time estimate. ### Step 3: Estimate Hours for Each Task For each task, estimate the number of hours it will take. Use the ranges in the At a Glance table as a starting point, then adjust based on your specific situation. Consider the following factors when making your estimates: - Your familiarity with the material. If you have been working with the data for months, analysis will be faster than if you are working with unfamiliar data. - The availability of resources. If you need to run new experiments, consider the time required to get equipment access, prepare samples, and collect data. - The complexity of the writing. Some sections are harder to write than others. The discussion section often takes longer than the methods section because it requires synthesis and argumentation. - The number of authors. If you have coauthors, you need to account for the time required to get their input and approval. Write your estimate for each task in your spreadsheet or planning document. Be realistic about your estimates. It is better to overestimate slightly than to underestimate and miss the deadline. ### Step 4: Add Time for the Response Letter The response letter is a separate task that requires its own time estimate. This letter addresses each reviewer comment and explains what you changed and why. A well-written response letter is important because it helps the editor and reviewers understand your revisions. The time required for the response letter depends on the number of comments and the complexity of your responses. For a typical revision with 10 to 20 comments, the response letter can take 4 to 8 hours. For a more complex revision with many comments or significant changes, the response letter can take 10 to 15 hours. ### Step 5: Build the Revision Schedule Once you have estimates for each task, you can build a schedule. Start with the deadline from the journal. Work backward from the deadline to determine when you need to start each task. Include buffer time for unexpected delays, such as equipment failures, data problems, or co-author delays. The schedule should be realistic and account for your other commitments. If you have teaching, clinical, or laboratory duties, you cannot spend all your time on the revision. The schedule should reflect the actual hours you have available each day or week. ## Downloadable Spreadsheet Template A spreadsheet template can help you organize your revision tasks and track your progress. The template should include columns for the task description, the reviewer comment it addresses, the estimated hours, the actual hours, and the completion status. You can also add a column for the deadline for each task. The spreadsheet serves two purposes. First, it helps you create the initial estimate by forcing you to list all tasks and assign hours. Second, it helps you track your progress during the revision. When you complete a task, you can record the actual hours and compare them to your estimate. This comparison helps you improve your estimates for future revisions. To create the template, open a new spreadsheet and create the following columns: - Task ID - Task description - Reviewer comment reference - Estimated hours - Actual hours - Status (not started, in progress, complete) - Deadline You can add additional columns for notes or for the author responsible for the task if you are working with co-authors. The template should be flexible enough to accommodate your specific revision. ## Options and Tradeoffs in Revision Planning ### Option 1: Request an Extension If your estimate shows that you cannot complete the revision by the deadline, you have the option to request an extension from the journal. Most journals allow extensions, but the process varies. Some journals require you to contact the editorial office, while others have a system for requesting extensions online. The tradeoff is that an extension delays publication. However, a complete and well-executed revision is better than a rushed one that does not address the reviewer comments. If you request an extension, be realistic about the time you need and communicate clearly with the editor. ### Option 2: Reduce the Scope of the Revision In some cases, you can reduce the scope of the revision by declining to make certain changes. You can decline a change if you have a strong reason, such as a methodological justification or a lack of relevance to the research question. The response letter should explain your reasoning and provide evidence for your position. This option requires careful judgment. You should only decline changes that you can justify with evidence. Declining a change without a strong reason can lead to additional review rounds or rejection. The [Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices) provides context on the expectations for peer review and the responsibilities of authors. ### Option 3: Seek Help from Co-authors If you have co-authors, you can divide the revision tasks among them. This approach can reduce the total time if the tasks are independent. For example, one author can rewrite the methods section while another author creates a new figure. The division of labor requires coordination. You need to assign tasks based on each author's expertise and availability. You also need to account for the time required to integrate the changes and to get approval from all authors. The [ORCID for Researchers](https://info.orcid.org/researchers) page describes how researcher identity and record maintenance work, which is relevant when you are coordinating contributions from multiple authors. ## Records and Measurements ### Track Your Actual Time The most useful record for improving your time estimates is the actual time you spend on each task. When you complete a task, record the actual hours in your spreadsheet. This record provides the historical data you need for future revisions. The actual time may differ from your estimate. This difference is not a failure. It is information. If you consistently underestimate the time for a particular task type, you can adjust your estimates for future revisions. If you consistently overestimate, you can reduce your estimates. ### Record the Type of Revision In addition to the time, record the type of revision you performed. This record helps you understand the relationship between the revision type and the time required. For example, you may find that a revision that requires new data analysis always takes longer than you estimate, while a revision that requires only text edits takes less time. ### Use the Records for Future Planning The records from past revisions are the best basis for planning future revisions. When you receive a new revision request, review your records for similar revisions. Use the actual times from those revisions as the starting point for your new estimates. ## Common Failure Patterns in Time Estimation ### Underestimating the Time for New Data A common failure is to underestimate the time required for new data analysis or new experiments. The time required for these tasks is often longer than expected because of unexpected problems. Data may be missing, software may not work, or the analysis may require more iterations than planned. To avoid this failure, add a buffer to your estimates for data-related tasks. The buffer should account for the possibility of problems. A buffer of 20 to 30 percent is a reasonable starting point for data analysis tasks. ### Underestimating the Time for Writing Writing is often underestimated because it is difficult to predict how long it will take to express an idea clearly. The time required for writing depends on the complexity of the material and the author's writing skill. A section that requires a new argument or a new interpretation can take much longer than a section that requires only minor edits. ### Failing to Account for Co-author Input If you have co-authors, you must account for the time required to get their input. Co-authors may be slow to respond, or they may request changes that require additional work. The time for co-author input should be included in your schedule, not treated as an afterthought. ### Ignoring the Journal's Requirements The journal may have specific requirements for the revision, such as a particular format for the response letter or a limit on the length of the revised manuscript. These requirements can add time to the revision. You should read the journal's instructions for authors before you start the revision. ## Limitations of Time Estimation ### Estimates Are Not Guarantees Time estimates are not guarantees. They are based on the information available at the time of the estimate. The actual time can be longer or shorter than the estimate. The estimate is a planning tool, not a commitment. ### The Revision Process Is Iterative The revision process is not always linear. You may need to revise a section multiple times before you are satisfied with it. You may also need to revisit earlier tasks as you work on later ones. This iteration can add time to the revision. ### External Factors Can Affect the Time External factors, such as the availability of equipment, the response time of co-authors, or the need to consult with a statistician, can affect the revision time. These factors are often outside your control. You should account for them in your schedule by adding buffer time. ## Safety and Regulatory Context ### Data Management and Sharing When you revise a manuscript, you may need to update the data management and sharing plan. The [NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy](https://sharing.nih.gov/data-management-and-sharing-policy) describes the expectations for data management and sharing for NIH-funded research. If your research is NIH-funded, you must ensure that your revision is consistent with the policy. ### Research Methods and Reporting The revision process is an opportunity to improve the reporting of your research methods. The [EQUATOR Network](https://www.equator-network.org/) provides reporting guidelines for various study types. Using the appropriate reporting guideline can help you ensure that your revised manuscript includes all the necessary information. ### Publication Ethics The revision process must follow the publication ethics standards. The [Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices) covers authorship, peer review, data, conflicts of interest, and misconduct. You should ensure that your revision process is consistent with these practices. ## Professional Escalation Criteria ### When to Seek Help from a Statistician If the reviewer requests a statistical analysis that you are not familiar with, you should seek help from a statistician. The statistician can help you run the analysis and interpret the results. The time required for this consultation should be included in your revision estimate. ### When to Consult a Colleague If you are unsure about how to address a reviewer comment, you can consult a colleague. The colleague can provide a second opinion on the best approach. This consultation can help you avoid a mistake that could lead to additional review rounds. ### When to Contact the Editor If you have a question about the journal's requirements or the scope of the revision, you can contact the editor. The editor can clarify the requirements and help you understand the expectations. This contact should be made early in the revision process, not after you have started the revision. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### How do I estimate the time for a revision that requires new experiments? Estimate the time for each experiment separately, including the time for experiment design, equipment access, sample preparation, data collection, and data analysis. Add a buffer of 20 to 30 percent for unexpected problems. The total time for the experiments is the sum of the individual estimates. ### What should I do if I cannot meet the revision deadline? Contact the editor as soon as you know you cannot meet the deadline. Explain the situation and request an extension. The editor will tell you if an extension is possible and how to request it. Do not wait until the deadline has passed to contact the editor. ### How long should the response letter be? The response letter should be as long as it needs to be to address each comment. There is no fixed length. The letter should be organized by comment, with a clear explanation of the change you made or the reason you did not make a change. The letter should be easy for the reviewer to follow. ### Can I decline to make a change requested by a reviewer? You can decline a change if you have a strong reason, such as a methodological issue or a lack of data. The response letter should explain your reason and provide evidence. The [Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices) provides context on the responsibilities of authors in the peer review process. ### How do I track my progress during the revision? Use the spreadsheet template to track your progress. Record the estimated hours for each task and the actual hours when you complete the task. Update the status of each task as you work on it. This tracking helps you see if you are on schedule. ### What is the best way to write a response letter? The best way is to organize the letter by reviewer and by comment. For each comment, restate the comment in your own words, then explain the change you made or the reason you did not make a change. Be specific and provide evidence for your decisions. The letter should be clear and easy to follow. ### How do I account for co-author input in my time estimate? Add time to your estimate for the co-author review process. The time depends on the number of co-authors and their availability. A reasonable estimate is 2 to 4 hours per co-author for the review and approval process. This time should be included in your schedule. ### What should I do if I disagree with a reviewer's comment? If you disagree with a comment, you can decline to make the change. The response letter should explain your disagreement and provide evidence. The explanation should be respectful and professional. The editor will decide whether your response is acceptable. ## Using the Evidence | Source | Best use in this topic | Important limitation | |---|---|---| | [Research Methods Resources](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books) | official guidance | Check the linked page for current local requirements | | [EQUATOR Network](https://www.equator-network.org/) | official guidance | Check the linked page for current local requirements | | [Core Practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices) | official guidance | Check the linked page for current local requirements | ## Related Articles - [Haplotype Phasing Long Reads](/blog/guides/haplotype-phasing-long-reads) - [Long-Read Genome Sequencing](/blog/guides/long-read-genome-sequencing) - [Long Read Rna Sequencing](/blog/guides/long-read-rna-sequencing) - [Long Read Sequencing Methylation](/blog/guides/long-read-sequencing-methylation) - [Nanopore Long Read Sequencing](/blog/guides/nanopore-long-read-sequencing) ## References and Further Reading - [Research Methods Resources](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books). National Library of Medicine. - [EQUATOR Network](https://www.equator-network.org/). EQUATOR Network. - [Core Practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices). Committee on Publication Ethics. - [NIH Grants and Funding](https://grants.nih.gov/). National Institutes of Health. - [ORCID for Researchers](https://info.orcid.org/researchers). ORCID. - [Data Management and Sharing Policy](https://sharing.nih.gov/data-management-and-sharing-policy). National Institutes of Health. - [NCBI Literature Resources](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/). National Center for Biotechnology Information. - [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/). National Library of Medicine. > This article is educational and does not replace institutional policy, professional advice, or applicable safety and regulatory requirements.