# Track Changes Etiquette: What to Accept, Reject, or Leave for the Editor ## Quick Answer - Accept edits that improve accuracy, clarity, or compliance with journal formatting, and reject edits that introduce factual errors or contradict the study data. - Resolve conflicting co-author edits by discussing them in comment threads instead of silently choosing one version, then confirm the final decision with all authors. - Leave stylistic preferences and non-essential wording changes for the editor to handle, since journal style guides and copyediting standards vary by publication. ## Understanding Track Changes in Multi-Author Manuscripts Track changes is a collaborative editing tool that records every insertion, deletion, and formatting adjustment made to a document. When multiple authors work on the same manuscript, the revision history becomes a shared record of who changed what and when. This transparency supports accountability among co-authors, which aligns with the authorship responsibilities described in the [Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices). The core practices emphasize that all authors must have access to the full manuscript and be able to review and approve the final version before submission. The challenge for most authors is not learning how to turn track changes on or off. The challenge is deciding which edits to accept, which to reject, and which to leave unresolved for the journal editor. This decision process affects the clarity of the manuscript, the integrity of the research record, and the efficiency of the peer review process. When you submit a manuscript with unresolved track changes, the journal editor must interpret your intentions. Some journals require a clean version for peer review, while others accept a version with visible changes. The [EQUATOR Network](https://www.equator-network.org/) provides reporting guidelines that help authors prepare manuscripts that meet journal expectations. These guidelines do not specify track changes procedures, but they emphasize transparent reporting, which includes submitting a manuscript that reviewers can read without confusion. ## Core Principles for Managing Track Changes ### Accuracy Takes Priority Over Preference The first principle of track changes etiquette is that accuracy outranks stylistic preference. When a co-author changes a number, a statistical result, or a data interpretation, you must verify the change against the original data before accepting it. If the change introduces an error, reject it and add a comment explaining why the original version was correct. For example, if a co-author changes a sample size from 48 to 84, you need to check the study records. If the correct sample size is 48, reject the edit and comment with the source of the correct number. If the co-author has access to updated data that you have not seen, ask for the source before accepting the change. ### Distinguish Substantive Edits from Stylistic Edits Substantive edits change the meaning of the text. These include changes to study methods, statistical analyses, results, conclusions, and author contributions. Stylistic edits change the presentation without changing the meaning. This includes word order, punctuation, and sentence length. Substantive edits require discussion and verification. Stylistic edits can be accepted or rejected based on the journal style guide. The [National Library of Medicine Research Methods Resources](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books) provides access to research methodology references that can help you verify whether a substantive edit is methodologically sound. ### Preserve the Author Record The [ORCID for Researchers](https://info.orcid.org/researchers) page explains that a persistent researcher identifier helps maintain an accurate record of your research contributions. When you accept or reject track changes, you are shaping the public record of your work. Accepting an edit that misrepresents your contribution or the study findings can affect your publication record. ## The Decision Framework for Accepting or Rejecting Edits Use this framework when you review each tracked change in your manuscript. ### Accept the Edit When - The edit corrects a factual error in the original text. - The edit improves clarity without changing the meaning. - The edit aligns the manuscript with the target journal formatting requirements. - The edit reflects a decision made by the full author group. - The edit removes redundant or irrelevant content. ### Reject the Edit When - The edit introduces a factual error. - The edit changes the interpretation of the data without supporting evidence. - The edit contradicts the study protocol or approved analysis plan. - The edit removes content that is required by the reporting guidelines. - The edit changes the author contributions without discussion. ### Leave the Edit for the Editor When - The edit is a stylistic preference that does not affect meaning. - The edit involves journal-specific formatting that you cannot verify. - The edit is part of a larger revision that the editor requested. - The edit involves a conflict between co-authors that you cannot resolve. ## At a Glance | Edit Type | Action | Reason | Example | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Factual correction | Accept | The edit fixes an error in the original text | Correcting a misspelled gene name | | Data change without evidence | Reject | The edit alters a result without supporting data | Changing a p value without new analysis | | Stylistic wording change | Leave for editor | The edit does not affect meaning or accuracy | Changing "utilize" to "use" | | Formatting change | Leave for editor | The edit aligns with journal style but is not verified | Changing heading capitalization | | Author contribution change | Reject until confirmed | The edit changes authorship without group approval | Adding an author without consent | | Reporting guideline addition | Accept | The edit adds required transparency content | Adding a data availability statement | ## Practical Workflow for Managing Track Changes ### Step 1: Set the Ground Rules Before Editing Before any co-author begins editing, agree on the ground rules for the revision. This includes deciding who will review the final version, how conflicts will be resolved, and what the deadline is for edits. The [Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices) state that all authors must agree on the final version of the manuscript. Setting ground rules early prevents disputes later. ### Step 2: Review Edits in Order Work through the manuscript in the order the edits appear. Do not skip around, because this increases the risk of missing a change. For each edit, apply the decision framework. ### Step 3: Use Comments for Discussion When you reject an edit, add a comment that explains the reason. When you accept an edit, you can also add a comment if the change requires context. Comments are the appropriate place for discussion, not the text itself. ### Step 4: Resolve Conflicts Between Co-Authors If two co-authors make conflicting edits to the same sentence, do not accept one and reject the other without discussion. Use the comment feature to ask both authors for their reasoning. If the conflict is about data or methods, consult the study records. If the conflict is about interpretation, the author group must reach a consensus. ### Step 5: Prepare the Final Version Once all authors have reviewed the changes, accept all remaining edits and turn off track changes. Save a clean version of the manuscript for submission. Keep a separate version with the full revision history for your records. ## Records and Measurements ### What to Record Keep a revision log that documents the following for each round of edits: - The date of each revision round. - The name of each author who made edits. - The number of edits accepted and rejected. - The reason for each rejected edit. - The resolution of each conflict. This log is useful if a question arises about the manuscript during peer review or after publication. The [NIH Grants and Funding](https://grants.nih.gov/) pages describe the importance of maintaining accurate records for research funded by NIH. While the grant policy does not specifically address track changes, the principle of accurate record keeping applies to all research outputs. ### How to Store the Records Store the revision history with the manuscript files. Use a file naming convention that includes the version number and the date. For example, "manuscript_v3_2025-01-15.docx" and "manuscript_v3_clean_2025-01-15.docx". This makes it easy to identify the final version. ## Common Failure Patterns in Track Changes Management ### Accepting Edits Without Verification The most common failure is accepting an edit because the co-author is senior or because the change looks reasonable. This can introduce errors into the manuscript. Always verify substantive edits against the data or the original source. ### Rejecting Edits Without Explanation Rejecting an edit without a comment leaves the co-author confused and can create conflict. When you reject an edit, explain why in a comment. This is part of the transparent communication that the [Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices) describe for authorship responsibilities. ### Leaving Too Many Changes for the Editor Some authors leave every stylistic change for the editor, which creates a large workload for the editorial office and can delay the review process. The editor is responsible for copy editing and formatting, but the authors are responsible for the content. Leave only the changes that are clearly within the editor's scope. ### Ignoring Conflicting Edits When two co-authors make conflicting edits, ignoring the conflict and submitting the manuscript with both versions visible is a failure. The editor cannot resolve the conflict for you. The author group must resolve the conflict before submission. ### Accepting Edits That Change Author Contributions Author contributions are a matter of publication ethics. The [Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices) state that authorship should be based on substantial contributions to the work. If a co-author adds or removes an author in the track changes, this must be discussed by the full author group before the change is accepted. ## Limitations of Track Changes ### Track Changes Does Not Capture All Decisions Track changes records the text edits, but it does not record the discussion that led to the edits. The comments feature captures some discussion, but not all. For important decisions, the author group should have a separate record of the discussion. ### Track Changes Can Be Turned Off A co-author can turn off track changes and make edits that are not recorded. This is a limitation of the tool, not a failure of the author group. To address this, the author group can agree that all edits must be made with track changes on. ### Track Changes Does Not Resolve Conflicts The tool records the conflict, but it does not resolve it. The author group must resolve the conflict through discussion. The [EQUATOR Network](https://www.equator-network.org/) provides reporting guidelines that can help authors decide which information is necessary, which can help resolve conflicts about content. ## Welfare and Safety Context ### Data Integrity and Research Misconduct The way you handle track changes affects the integrity of the research record. Accepting an edit that falsifies data, or rejecting an edit that corrects an error, can be considered research misconduct. The [Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices) describe the responsibilities of authors and journals in cases of misconduct. If you suspect that a co-author is making edits that falsify data, you should raise the concern with the author group and, if necessary, with the journal editor. ### Data Management and Sharing 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. This policy does not address track changes, but it emphasizes the importance of accurate data records. The manuscript is a record of the research, and the track changes are part of that record. ### Professional Escalation Criteria If you cannot resolve a conflict about a track change, or if you suspect that a co-author is making changes that falsify the research, you should escalate the issue. The escalation path is: 1. Discuss the issue with the co-author directly. 2. Discuss the issue with the full author group. 3. Contact the journal editor. 4. Contact the institution research integrity officer. The [Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices) provide a framework for handling allegations of misconduct. The [NIH Grants and Funding](https://grants.nih.gov/) pages describe the responsibilities of grantees in maintaining research integrity. ## Practical Implementation Steps ### Step 1: Create a Revision Protocol Write a short protocol that describes how your author group will handle track changes. Include the decision framework, the comment rules, and the conflict resolution process. Share this protocol with all co-authors before the revision begins. ### Step 2: Assign a Revision Coordinator One author should be responsible for coordinating the revision. This person reviews the track changes, ensures that all comments are addressed, and prepares the final version. This is often the corresponding author, but it can be any author with the time and the authority. ### Step 3: Use the Comment Feature for All Discussions Do not use the text of the manuscript for discussion. Use the comment feature for all discussion about the changes. This keeps the manuscript text clean and the discussion visible. ### Step 4: Verify All Substantive Edits For every substantive edit, verify the change against the data or the original source. This includes changes to numbers, units, statistical results, and interpretations. If you cannot verify the change, ask the co-author for the source. ### Step 5: Prepare the Clean Version After all authors have reviewed the changes, accept all remaining edits and reject all remaining comments. Save the clean version for submission. Keep the version with the revision history for your records. ## Observations and Measurements ### What to Observe When you review track changes, observe the following: - The number of edits made by each author. - The type of edits (substantive or stylistic). - The number of conflicts between authors. - The number of edits that require verification. These observations help you understand the collaboration pattern and identify potential issues. ### What to Measure You can measure the following: - The time between the first edit and the final version. - The number of revision rounds. - The number of unresolved conflicts at the time of submission. These measurements help you improve the revision process for future manuscripts. ## Professional Escalation Criteria ### When to Escalate Escalate the issue when: - A co-author refuses to discuss a conflicting edit. - A co-author makes changes that falsify the data. - The author group cannot reach a consensus on a substantive change. - The journal editor requests a change that you believe is incorrect. ### How to Escalate Follow the escalation path described in the welfare and ethics section. The [Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices) provide the framework for handling these issues. The [NIH Grants and Funding](https://grants.nih.gov/) pages describe the process for handling research misconduct in NIH-funded research. ## A Structured Audit Method for Track Changes Before Submission Beyond deciding what to accept or reject, authors often struggle with a different problem: how to verify that the final manuscript is internally consistent after many rounds of edits. A co-author may accept a change in the methods section that contradicts a result reported later, or a rejected edit may leave a dangling reference to a term that no longer exists. A structured audit method catches these problems before submission. ### The Consistency Audit The consistency audit is a systematic check that compares the final accepted text against the original data and against itself. It is distinct from the decision framework because it does not evaluate individual edits. Instead, it evaluates the manuscript as a whole after all edits have been resolved. Run the audit in three passes: **Pass 1: Data cross-check.** List every number, statistical result, and data point in the manuscript. Compare each one against the study records. This includes sample sizes, p values, confidence intervals, percentages, and dates. The [National Library of Medicine Research Methods Resources](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books) provides methodology references that describe how to report statistical results accurately. If a number in the manuscript does not match the source record, trace the edit that changed it and verify the source. **Pass 2: Terminology consistency.** Search the manuscript for every term that was changed during the revision. If a co-author changed "participants" to "subjects," verify that the new term is used consistently throughout. If a co-author changed a gene name or a chemical formula, verify that the new version appears in every location. Inconsistent terminology is a common failure pattern that reviewers notice. **Pass 3: Cross-reference integrity.** Check every internal reference in the manuscript. This includes references to tables, figures, sections, and supplementary materials. If an edit deleted a table or renumbered a figure, the in-text references must be updated. The [EQUATOR Network](https://www.equator-network.org/) reporting guidelines often specify how tables and figures should be referenced, and following those guidelines helps ensure the manuscript is complete. ### The Revision Log Matrix A revision log matrix is a simple table that tracks the status of every substantive edit in the manuscript. It complements the track changes feature because it records the reasoning behind each decision, which the track changes document does not capture. Create a matrix with the following columns: | Column | Purpose | | --- | --- | | Edit ID | A unique number for each substantive edit | | Location | The section and paragraph where the edit appears | | Author | The person who made the edit | | Type | Substantive or stylistic | | Decision | Accept, reject, or leave for editor | | Reason | The justification for the decision | | Verified | Yes or no, indicating whether the edit was checked against the source | Assign an edit ID to every substantive edit in the manuscript. This includes changes to data, methods, results, conclusions, and author contributions. Stylistic edits do not need an edit ID because they do not affect the meaning of the text. The matrix serves two purposes. First, it forces the revision coordinator to review every substantive edit and record a reason for the decision. Second, it provides a record that can be shared with co-authors who want to understand why a particular change was made. The [Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices) emphasize that all authors must be able to review and approve the final version. The matrix supports this by making the decision process transparent. ### The Final Read-Through Protocol The final read-through is the last step before submission. It is a full read of the clean version of the manuscript, not the version with track changes. The purpose is to read the manuscript as a reviewer would read it, without the distraction of the revision history. Assign the final read-through to an author who did not make the majority of the edits. This person is more likely to notice inconsistencies because they are reading the text fresh. The reader should look for: - Sentences that are incomplete or broken after edits were accepted. - Paragraphs that no longer flow because a sentence was deleted. - Claims that are no longer supported by the data that remains. - References to content that was deleted. The [EQUATOR Network](https://www.equator-network.org/) provides reporting guidelines that describe the information that should be present in a manuscript. The final read-through is the time to check that the manuscript meets those expectations. ### Common Failure Patterns in the Audit **Skipping the data cross-check.** The most common failure is submitting a manuscript without verifying the numbers against the source records. This is especially risky when a co-author has made changes to the results section. A single incorrect number can trigger a request for clarification from the journal or, worse, an allegation of data fabrication. **Accepting edits that create internal contradictions.** A co-author may change the sample size in the methods section but not update the sample size in the results section. The audit catches this because it compares the manuscript against the source records, beyond against the track changes. **Leaving the audit to the last minute.** The audit takes time, especially for a manuscript with many substantive edits. If the audit is done the day before submission, the author group may not have time to resolve the issues that the audit finds. The audit should be scheduled as a separate step in the revision timeline. ### When to Use the Audit The audit is not necessary for every revision. A manuscript with only stylistic edits does not need a full data cross-check. The audit is necessary when: - The revision includes changes to the data or the results. - The revision includes changes to the methods. - The revision includes changes to the conclusions. - The revision includes changes to the author contributions. The audit is also necessary when the revision is the result of a peer review request. The [EQUATOR Network](https://www.equator-network.org/) provides reporting guidelines that are often used by reviewers to evaluate a manuscript. The audit ensures that the revised manuscript meets those guidelines. ### Records and Measurements Record the results of the audit in the revision log. For each pass, note the number of issues found and the number of issues resolved. This measurement helps the author group understand the quality of the revision process. If the audit finds many issues, the revision process may need to be improved for the next manuscript. The audit results are also useful if a question arises during peer review. If a reviewer asks about a specific number, the revision log shows that the number was verified against the source. This record supports the integrity of the research, which is a core principle of the [Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices). ### Professional Escalation Criteria If the audit finds a discrepancy that cannot be resolved, escalate the issue. The escalation path is the same as for any other track changes conflict: 1. Discuss the discrepancy with the co-author who made the edit. 2. Discuss the discrepancy with the full author group. 3. If the discrepancy involves data that cannot be verified, consult the study records or the data repository. 4. If the discrepancy cannot be resolved, contact the journal editor before submission. The [NIH Grants and Funding](https://grants.nih.gov/) pages describe the responsibilities of grantees in maintaining accurate research records. A discrepancy in the manuscript that cannot be resolved is a record-keeping problem that should be addressed before submission, not after. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### How do I respond to a peer reviewer who asks for a change that I disagree with? Respond to the reviewer in the response letter, not in the track changes. Explain why you disagree with the change and provide the evidence for your position. The [EQUATOR Network](https://www.equator-network.org/) provides reporting guidelines that can help you justify your position if the change affects the reporting of the research. ### What is the difference between a substantive edit and a stylistic edit? A substantive edit changes the meaning of the text, such as a change to the data or the interpretation. A stylistic edit changes the wording without changing the meaning, such as a change to the punctuation or the sentence structure. Substantive edits require verification and discussion. Stylistic edits can be accepted or rejected based on the journal style. ### Should I accept all the edits from the journal editor? No. The journal editor is responsible for formatting and copy editing, but you are responsible for the accuracy of the content. If the editor makes a change that introduces an error, you should reject the change and explain why. ### How do I handle a conflict between two co-authors who make different edits to the same passage? Do not accept one edit and reject the other without discussion. Use the comment feature to ask both co-authors for their reasoning. If the conflict is about data or interpretation, consult the data sources. If the conflict is about the author contributions, discuss the issue with the full author group. ### Can I turn off track changes to make a quick edit? You can turn off track changes for a quick edit, but this is not recommended. If you turn off track changes, the edit is not recorded, and the other authors cannot see the change. This can lead to confusion and conflict. It is better to keep track changes on for all edits. ### What should I do if a co-author makes a change that I believe is incorrect? Reject the change and add a comment explaining why the original version was correct. If the co-author disagrees, discuss the issue with the full author group. If the issue is about data or the interpretation, consult the data sources. If the issue cannot be resolved, escalate the issue to the journal editor. ### How do I prepare the final version for submission? After all authors have reviewed the changes, accept all edits and reject all comments. Turn off track changes and save a clean version of the manuscript. Keep the version with the track changes for your records. The clean version is the one you submit to the journal. ### What is the role of the corresponding author in track changes? The corresponding author is responsible for coordinating the revision process. This includes reviewing the track changes, resolving conflicts, and preparing the final version. The corresponding author is the point of contact for the journal and the other authors. The [ORCID for Researchers](https://info.orcid.org/researchers) page describes the importance of the researcher identity in the publication process. ## Related Articles - [Research Authorship: Discussing Credit, Contributions, and Order Before Submission](/blog/miscellaneous/research-authorship-discussing-credit-contributions-and-order-before-submission) - [Ncbi Genome Submission](/blog/guides/ncbi-genome-submission) - [BMC Bioinformatics: Scope, Articles, and Submission Guide](/blog/guides/bmc-bioinformatics) - [DNA Models: What They Show and What They Leave Out](/blog/guides/dna-models) - [Bioinformatics vs Biostatistics: Which Career Fits You?](/blog/careers/bioinformatics-vs-biostatistics-which-career-fits-you) ## 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.