The subject line appears, and you read the decision too quickly. Major revision, rejection, an invitation to resubmit: the wording matters, but right now you're reacting to how it feels.
The handbook describes review as a process that may involve criticism, revision, and further decisions. Start with the actual letter and the journal's instructions. Don't assume every decision follows the same route.
Identify the decision before planning the response
Read the editor's message separately from the reviewer comments. What action is invited or required? Is there a revision deadline? Does the letter permit a resubmission, or has the submission ended?
Save the record and clarify a genuine ambiguity through the journal's designated route. An invitation to revise isn't a guarantee of acceptance.
Read all the comments before editing
Look for themes affecting the question, design, evidence, interpretation, or presentation. Distinguish the editor's priorities from individual suggestions. A local wording change may not resolve the larger concern behind a comment.
Share and discuss the feedback with coauthors using the appropriate confidentiality practices.
Make a response plan
Track each substantive point, the proposed action, who will handle it, and where the change belongs. If new analysis is appropriate, define and document it carefully. Don't promise evidence the study can't provide.
When you disagree with a suggestion, explain the reasoning professionally and support the interpretation. A response can be respectful without accepting every proposed change.
Keep the letter and manuscript consistent
Describe the change clearly and identify its location in the form the journal requests. Check that revisions to one section are reflected in the abstract, tables, discussion, and other affected passages.
'Addressed' is less useful than a brief explanation of what changed and why.
Review the whole revised submission
Check the instructions, files, required statements, and author approvals again. Discuss timing early if the requested work can't reasonably fit the deadline, using the journal's process for any request.
Before opening the manuscript to edit, write a short account of the decision and the three most important issues. You'll have a clearer starting point than a document full of isolated changes made in the order you first read the comments.
Adapted from The New Faculty Handbook by Zafer Unal, pp. 120-121.
