When to Revise, When to Fight, and When to Walk Away

For aspiring scientists, publication is a milestone that reflects years of research, data collection, and careful analysis. The process of getting a manuscript accepted often involves responding to reviewer feedback. Most comments can be addressed through thoughtful revision. Occasionally, however, authors are faced with decisions about whether to challenge a reviewer’s interpretation or whether to withdraw a manuscript and submit elsewhere. Knowing when to revise, when to defend your work, and when to move on is a vital skill for building a successful publishing career.

The Context for Decision-Making

Peer review is designed to improve the quality of published research, but it is also a human process. Reviewers bring their own perspectives, areas of expertise, and potential biases to their assessments. Editors act as mediators, balancing reviewer recommendations with the journal’s standards. For authors, the goal is to navigate this process strategically, while protecting the integrity of their research.

Understanding the balance between constructive revision, reasoned defence, and strategic withdrawal can help authors avoid unnecessary conflict and make decisions that best serve their scientific and professional goals.

When to Revise

Revision is the most common and productive response to reviewer comments. Even the most carefully prepared manuscripts benefit from fresh perspectives.

Indicators that revision is the right choice include:

• Reviewer comments identify unclear sections or missing detail.

• Suggested changes improve clarity, precision, or readability without altering the scientific conclusions.

• Additional analysis or data presentation can reasonably be completed within the revision period.

• The requested revisions align with good scientific practice and improve the robustness of the study.

Revisions demonstrate professionalism and a willingness to strengthen the work. Even extensive revision requests can be an opportunity to improve the quality of the paper and build positive relationships with editors.

Approaching revisions constructively involves addressing each comment point-by-point, making changes in the manuscript where possible, and explaining in a response letter how each concern has been resolved.

When to Defend Your Work

There are occasions when a reviewer suggests changes that are not appropriate or that would weaken the integrity of the research. In these cases, it is both reasonable and necessary to defend your position.

Situations where defending your work is appropriate include:

• The reviewer has misunderstood a point due to a lack of clarity, and the correct response is to clarify rather than change the underlying content.

• The reviewer requests analysis or interpretations that are not supported by the data.

• The reviewer suggests changes that are outside the scope of the study or that introduce unnecessary complexity.

• The reviewer’s recommendation contradicts established evidence or methodology.

Defending your work does not mean rejecting the comment outright. A professional response acknowledges the reviewer’s perspective, explains why the suggested change is not appropriate, and provides evidence or rationale to support your decision.

Example:

Reviewer comment: The discussion should include detailed speculation about long-term effects of the intervention.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. While long-term effects are of interest, our study design and data do not allow for a robust evaluation of these outcomes. We have added a statement in the discussion (page 12, lines 300–305) acknowledging this as an area for future research.

This approach shows respect for the reviewer while preserving the integrity of the work.

When to Walk Away

In some cases, despite the best efforts to revise or defend your work, it becomes clear that the manuscript is unlikely to be accepted. This can happen for a variety of reasons:

• The journal’s scope is not an ideal match, leading to repeated requests for changes that move the work away from its core purpose.

• Reviewer or editorial feedback suggests a fundamental misalignment between the journal’s expectations and the study’s approach.

• The extent of requested changes would require a redesign of the study or the addition of extensive new data beyond the scope of the project.

• The tone or nature of the feedback suggests that acceptance is unlikely, even after revision.

Withdrawing a manuscript can be disappointing, but it is often a strategic decision. A different journal may provide a better fit for the research, leading to a smoother review process and a more suitable readership.

Walking away should be done professionally. A short, courteous letter to the editor explaining your decision to withdraw is sufficient. The revised manuscript can then be adapted for submission elsewhere.

Balancing Professionalism and Strategy

Whether revising, defending, or withdrawing, professionalism is essential. The peer review process is built on professional relationships. Editors and reviewers may encounter your work again in the future. A measured and respectful approach leaves a positive impression, even if the outcome of a single manuscript is unfavourable.

Practical tips for managing this balance include:

• Avoid responding to comments while still feeling frustrated or defensive.

• Take time to carefully evaluate which comments to accept, which to challenge, and which may require withdrawal.

• Consider seeking input from co-authors or trusted colleagues, who may provide a more objective perspective.

• Keep in mind the long-term trajectory of your research career. A well-handled revision or withdrawal can lead to better opportunities in the future.

Case Examples

Case 1: Successful Revision

A team submits a manuscript on a novel laboratory technique. Reviewers raise concerns about the clarity of the methods section and suggest additional experiments to test reproducibility. The authors complete the requested experiments, improve the methods description, and resubmit. The manuscript is accepted after minor further revision. In this case, revising strengthened both the paper and the authors’ reputation.

Case 2: Defending the Approach

An epidemiological study receives a reviewer comment suggesting the use of a different statistical model. The authors explain that the suggested model is inappropriate for their dataset, providing references and a clear justification. They also add clarifying language to the methods section to explain the rationale for their chosen approach. The editor accepts the explanation, and the paper is published.

Case 3: Strategic Withdrawal

A clinical research paper is submitted to a high-impact journal but receives reviewer feedback requesting a significant expansion of the study’s patient population and additional endpoints. The authors determine that these requests are not feasible and would require years of additional work. They withdraw the manuscript and submit it to a more specialised journal, where it is accepted with minor revisions.

These examples illustrate that the decision to revise, defend, or walk away depends on a clear understanding of the feedback, the scope of the project, and the strategic goals for publication.

Developing Confidence in Decision-Making

For aspiring scientists, it can feel risky to challenge a reviewer’s comment or to withdraw from a review process. Experience helps develop the confidence to make these decisions. Over time, familiarity with different journals, editorial styles, and reviewer expectations will make it easier to judge the best course of action.

Mentorship can also play a key role. Senior colleagues or supervisors can provide guidance based on their own experiences. Discussing challenging reviewer feedback with trusted mentors can help identify the most appropriate response.

Conclusion

Knowing when to revise, when to defend your work, and when to withdraw is a skill that grows with experience. The decision is rarely straightforward, but it should always be informed by the quality of the research, the integrity of the findings, and the long-term goals for publication.

Revising demonstrates flexibility and a commitment to quality. Defending shows confidence in sound science and clarity in reasoning. Walking away reflects strategic judgement and an understanding that the best home for a paper is not always the first choice.

Learning to navigate these choices with professionalism and confidence will make the path to publication smoother and more successful.

Contact Us if you need expert support with writing or refining your scientific manuscript.