How to handle major revision requests from IEEE Editor: A guide for researchers

When Researchers receive major revision request from the Institute of electrical and electronic engineers (IEEE) that may be discouraging. IEEE journal papers must be structured in a way that must be clear and easy to be read. Receiving a revision requests does not indicate that the whole journal is rejected but it requires some needed improvements before it can be accepted for the publication.

Major revision says that the core idea of the paper is valuable but it requires some modifications , clarifications and the structuring of the paper .so as the part of the paper publishing we must meet the expectations of the reviewer.

So major part of this process to approach the revision requests strategically and professionally that can increase chance of IEEE paper acceptance.

STEPS TO HANDLE MAJOR REVISION REQUESTS:

1. Stay Calm and Plan your next move:

Researchers may feel emotional after receiving the revision request. So the first step to remain calm before making any changes directly in to the paper itself. Go through the editor’s decision letter carefully and understand the concerns of the reviewer’s. Differentiate the technical issues from the simple formatting suggestions.

Take it as an opportunity to strengthen the journal rather than as criticism.

2. Organize the comments and work on it:

Listing the comments make the revision process manageable.

Differentiate whether it is a methodological concern, clarification of the results, structural improvements or any language and presentation issues. This may give the insight to prioritize the comments which needed the most concern.

3. Handle the revision by drafting needed response:

After Listing the comments, draft a clear and professional response letter that must include:

• Identify each comment of the reviewer, and place your response directly below the corresponding comment. Do not group the multiple comments together. Address the every single point individually, regardless of how simple it may seem.

• Clearly mention the page and line numbers where the changes were made and explain the modifications in detail.

• Example: we have updated the parameters in section III-B, page5, paragraph 2.

• Check your variables are defined consistently, Avoid the confusions between the inconsistent variables.

• If you made any additional experiments or the analyses, then describe it clearly and explain how they help the research.

4. Timeline Management:

An IEEE editor usually provides a certain deadline for resubmission. Researcher must be able to manage the time line efficiently and carefully. Researcher must be able to estimate the time for each of the reviewer’s comments they should know to allot time if the revision needs any addition experiments, simulations or extensive writing.

Drafting a clear revision plan is important so that process can be more manageable.

5. Check the document thoroughly:

Go through the updated version carefully that helps to improve the clarity .It helps to ensure that all the claims are supported with the needed citations. Update the references wherever necessary .After that put an comparisons that helps to understand the overview. Once again check the IEEE formatting guidelines .

Do not make any artificial edits .Improvements must be meaningful.

6. Disagree in a polite manner:

It is not a necessary point to agree with every suggestions of the reviewer. There is a possibility that researcher may have the valid reasons to disagree with specific comments. If this happens then always maintain a respectful and professional tone while addressing. Justify any disagreement with evidence and support that with references. Reviewers expect only constructive responses rather than emotional language.

7. Finalize the quality of the research paper:

Do final checks before submitting the updated review go through the entire paper for consistency and check whether you have addressed all of the reviewer’s comments and all the figures and tables are properly labeled. check grammar and IEEE submission guidelines.

Conclusion:

When the major revision requested from the IEEE editors do not see it as a setback. Take it as an opportunity to level up your research work. Most of the successful research always undergoes the major revisions before the acceptance.

If you approach reviewer comments professionally and approached it with clear strategy, then it may lead to increase the chances of the successful publication of the research paper.

Researchers should not feel discouraged by major revision. They should use the opportunity to refine their work and present a meaningful research paper.