Revisions of Manuscripts
The revision of a manuscript is a critical part of the publication process at all journals. Before getting into the details of revision preparation, it is useful to review some general aspects of manuscript decisions at Journal of Monetary Economics.
The first round decision on most manuscripts is reject. Only about 20% of unsolicited manuscripts are continued in various decision categories.
The most standard first-round continuation decision is reject/revise (also called revise and resubmit) without commitment to publication. When a manuscript is placed in this category at JME, the editors have made the decision that there is at least a 50% likelihood of ultimate publication. However, ultimate publication is not guaranteed.
At JME, the first revision is a critical one, as the revised manuscript (second round submission) must be either rejected or accepted subject to a specified plan of further revisions. It is up or out for the resubmission when there is a first-round reject/revise decision.
Since the first revision is a crucial in the process of publishing a manuscript at JME, the author(s) need to make sure that the revision is a successful one. The editors are open to clarifying aspects of first round editorial decisions to aid in this revision process.
The first revision needs to clearly identify the manuscript’s contribution that warrants publication in JME. Author energy should be focused on this goal. Most accepted manuscripts go through subsequent rounds of revisions, which then are aimed at completing the substantive work, shortening and/or improving the exposition, and bringing the manuscript in line with JME style.
The current page focuses on the first round of revision, with additional instructions for authors of accept with major revisions or accept with minor revisions manuscripts provided in companion pages.
A submission fee is required on all resubmissions.
The most important element of the revision process is communication. The following instructions indicate the JME’s preferred mode of communication.
1. Clarifying first round reports
Reading the referee report and formulating the revision plan
Reading the editorial letter and formulating the revision plan
Reconciling conflicting instructions
Return to overview
1. Clarifying first round reports
The editorial report(s) and referee report(s) from the first round submission should provide the author with guidance for the revision. If an author requires clarification, then please ask for this using an Author Query to the JME via the EEE system (information on how to do this can be obtained by clicking on the link) with a copy to the handling editors, including supervisory and associate editors at their primary email addresses.
Return to overview
2. Preparing a resubmission
There are 5 key elements of a resubmission
Reading the referee report and formulating the revision plan
Reading the editorial letter and formulating the revision plan
Reconciling conflicting instructions
Invitation to resubmit at the Journal of Monetary Economics indicates that the editor(s) and referee(s) have found that the manuscript has significant promise, but that additional work is necessary in order to produce an acceptable manuscript.
Return to overview
Reading the referee report and formulating the revision plan
The author(s) should begin by a careful reading of the referee report, which breaks it down into a series of points made by the referee. For each point, the author(s) should decide whether they agree that a modification is necessary and desirable.
The authors should then prepare an initial document entitled “Draft response to referee comments” which lists each comment made by the referee and gives a brief description of the action that the authors will take in the resubmission. The preparation of this document can be facilitated by copying the text directly from the original report (as provided either in a pdf downloaded from the EES website or from the text at the end of the decision letter).
Return to overview
Reading the editorial letter and formulating the revision plan
The editorial letter may contain the following items:
(a) additional substantive requests and/or questions beyond those issues raised by the referee;
(b) a priority listing of the referee recommendations, based on the editorial reading of the paper;
(c) a request for specific or general improvements in the exposition; for shortening of the document, or for a reorganization of the document;
(d) a request for changes in the number or quality of the figures or tables;
(e) a required movement of some components from the text to not-for-publication appendices or introduction of such appendices to further explain text elements.
The authors should prepare an initial document entitled “Draft response to editor letter” that lists each point made by the editor and gives a brief description of the action that the authors will take in the resubmission. The preparation of this document can be facilitated by using text copying directly from the original editorial decision letter.
The author(s) should carefully read the editorial letter, deciding whether the proposed modifications appear feasible and desirable. If the requested modifications are not, then the author(s) need to contact the handling editors (associate and supervisory) at this stage.
In formulating a revision plan and the communications that will be made about it, it is likely useful to review the instructions that the referee will receive about writing a referee report on a resubmission.
Return to overview
Revising the manuscript
The author(s) then should revise the manuscript according to this revision plan. One possibility is to also place the manuscript in JME style at this point, but the author(s) may not wish to do this since ultimate publication is not guaranteed.
The revised manuscript should be prepared in JME draft format, including twelve (12) point type, line numbering and double spacing with figures and tables on separate pages at the back of the manuscript, following the references and prior to any appendices. The purpose of these format requirements is to make it easier for editors and referees to provide feedback on manuscript details.
The revised manuscript should be prepared recognizing that JME rarely publishes appendices to articles, but that these are provided to readers as Supplementary Materials within Elsevier’s Science Direct system. The revised manuscript should provide clear links to such supplementary materials, which can be included along with the resubmitted manuscript in EES, as a separate component (see picture of EES options below).
Return to overview
Details matter
The author(s) should recognize that the editors and the referees have invested in the prior manuscript. A R/R decision means that they are willing to do so again. At the same time, the editor and referee want the evaluation cost of the revision to be as low as possible and the revision to be as close as possible to a finally accepted manuscript. To maximize the likelihood of a positive decision and a quick publication, it is in the interest of the author(s) to make sure that the details of the revision are carefully executed, as well as the major elements. However, it is the substantive details which matter at this stage, not JME-specific formatting requirements.
Return to overview
Reconciling conflicting instructions
There are times when there are conflicts between the comments of the referee(s), although JME generally makes use of only one report. There are also times when there are conflicts between the comments of the referee(s) and the instructions of the editor(s). In these cases, the author(s) should decide on how to best resolve the conflicts. The authors(s) should also clearly indicate how the conflicts were resolved in the documents discussed in the next section.
Return to overview
3. Preparing the resubmission for transmission to JME
The author(s) should include the following items in their resubmission.
(1) A brief cover letter to the JME editors that highlights the major elements of the revised manuscript and particularly stresses any major changes not requested by the editor and the referee on the prior round. For one example, if a new year’s worth of survey data has just become available and it is incorporated in the revision, then the author(s) of an empirical study should alert the editor to this fact. For another example, if the author(s) of a theoretical study have found a new, shorter route to a proof or derivation that is central to their work, then they should also alert the editor and referee to this fact.
The cover letter is also the appropriate place for the author(s) to express any concerns about the nature of the referee report. Within the EES system, the cover letter is entered into the system as a separate document: this assures confidentiality of the letter from the author to the editor.
Since the editor will automatically see the other letters described next, the cover letter should not duplicate this information.
The cover letter should state the principal contributions of the manuscript in one or two paragraphs, compactly stating the case for publication in Journal of Monetary Economics.
(2) A final “Response to editor letter” should be constructed based on the draft discussed above. It should add specific page ranges in which the editor comments, questions, and requests are incorporated into the revision. This document will be available to the referee and the editor. It can repeat the compact statement of the case for publication provided in the previous item.
(3) A final “Response to referee comments” should be constructed based on the draft discussed above. It should add specific page ranges in which the referee comments, questions, and requests are incorporated into the revision. This document will be available to both the editor and the referee.
Very important: Items (2) and (3) should be included at the end of the author’s manuscript, after references and appendix material. Within the EES system, this allows both the referee and editor ready access to the author plans for revision, along with the manuscript itself. These can either be included in the manuscript main file or attached as revision notes (see picture of EES options below).
(4) Elsevier now requires research highlights in addition to an abstract. These are 4 or 5 bullet point elements from a paper, each not exceeding 80 characters in length. These are to be included as a separate document (see picture of EES options below)
(5) Tables and figures need not be provided as separate elements in an EES submission, but are most frequently included in the primary manuscript document by authors. However, each should be on a separate page, following the references but preceding any appendix material.