This editorial is the second of 2 parts focusing on Poultry Science manuscripts. The first editorial (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2023.102732) discussed manuscript preparation. This part, which highlights key elements of manuscript revision, follows a June 27, 2023 webinar (https://poultryscience.org/Events-Webinars) on submitting manuscripts to the Poultry Science journals.
Papers submitted to Poultry Science are routed to an appropriate Section Editor who invites reviewers selected from associate editors, ad-hoc reviewer scientists with relevant expertise, and individuals suggested by authors. Reviewers recommend an editorial outcome. When all reviews are completed, the submitted manuscript and its associated reviews are examined by the assigned Section Editor, who also recommends a decision. The entire portfolio is evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief who makes the final decision based on all recommendations.
There are 4 possible manuscript decisions: accept, revise, revise to research note, and reject. Accept is an uncommon decision on initial submissions. Reject, which may occur after initial submission or revision, occurs about 53% of the time, Rejection is based on multiple factors, including but not limited to poor or no scientific principle begin investigated, insufficient data to support conclusions, language deficiencies, incorrect format, etc. This commentary examines both revision options.
REVISION
Reviewers and editors request manuscript revision to validate sound science as well as to improve clarity of communication. Reviewer comments, which may seem harsh, are presented as an honest evaluation of the work reported rather than a personal attack on the authors. Investigators have invested time and resources to conduct research and prepare a manuscript that communicated the methods, results, and their interpretation to the scientific community. One strategy to handle a less than flattering review is to put the entire document aside for a day. After that time, read the original manuscript in conjunction with its reviews before responding to the comments. The author's tendency is to respond as quickly as possible to remove “revise manuscript” from their to-do list.
Authors are expected to consider all suggested changes after which they either modify the manuscript or rebut the reviewer's request. Any rebuttal of reviewer comments must be supported using data to substantiate their points of disagreement. It is reasonable to expect that most of the reviewer suggestions will be accepted. Poultry Science has neither stated nor implied any threshold percent for suggestions to be followed, however, wholesale disregard for all reviewer comments is a fast path to manuscript rejection.
Each reviewer comment should be addressed individually. The recommended approach is to copy reviewer suggestions into the reply document. Then, follow each comment with the response including the manuscript line numbers where the change occurred. In many instances, the answer may as simple as “done as requested” or “completed.” Sometimes, 2 reviewer comments on the same issues may be diametrically opposed. Authors must choose one of the alternatives as both opposing requests cannot be completed. Adequate justification of the choice is critical. Authors may consult with the Section Editor or Editor-in-Chief to assist with their choice.
Reviewers may request language revision due to errors in wording or syntax. Changes can be aided by an English-speaking colleague or a professional editing service. Authors’ efforts are sometimes focused on limited parts of the manuscript such as the abstract. In fact, the journal expects that all English will meet the minimum standard for effective communication. One part of the author's responsibility is to ensure that language is corrected throughout the revision.
Changes in the revised manuscript must be highlighted in yellow only. Using track changes in manuscript revision is prohibited as stated in the Guide for Authors (https://www.elsevier.com/journals/poultry-science/0032-5791/guide-for-authors). Examination of the revised manuscript is facilitated by highlighting amended text. Reviewers should not have to search for modifications or make exhaustive comparison between 2 manuscript versions.
Revised papers are returned to the responsible Section Editor who examines the revised work and recommends the manuscript's fate. There are rare instances in which a revised manuscript is returned to the original reviewers. This action may be upon request of those reviewers or at the discretion of the Section Editor. In addition, reviewers incur an obligation to examine revised manuscripts for which they conducted the initial review. The decision of the Section Editor is moved to the Editor-in-Chief who, in turn, makes the final decision.
A key point is that the journal works to reach a conclusion for each manuscript using a single revision. Multiple revisions increase manuscript processing time with a disproportionate cost-benefit. Authors should be conscientious in their revision process which is extended beyond the “clean up” phase using multiple revisions. Some authors take a lackadaisical approach to their revision believing that minor deficiencies including format, spelling, and syntax will be completed in second revision or passed over for editing in the final proof. Both review and editorial time are wasted correcting careless mistakes by the authors.
REVISE TO RESEARCH NOTE
The editorial decision revise to research note is used after initial review. Submitted full-length manuscripts may be more appropriate as a research note because the work reported contains “….preliminary or final data fulfilling one or more of the following criteria: a single experiment, low sample numbers, or limited replication.” (https://www.elsevier.com/journals/poultry-science/0032-5791/guide-for-authors). Revising a manuscript to a research note follows similar procedures to those for a full-length manuscript. Research notes are restricted to 3,000 words, a maximum of 10 references and 2 explanatory elements as tables or figures. If authors disagree with the revise to research note decision, they should consult with the Section Editor before proceeding. Resubmitting a full-length revision instead of a research note risks rejection for failure to follow instructions.
FINAL OBSERVATIONS
Contributions from young scientists, such as graduate students or postdoctoral fellows, advance the poultry science field. In addition, these investigators gain experience as the next scientist generation by preparing research manuscripts and modifying these works for successful publication. There are instances in which the revision process is passed to these less experienced individuals with little to no oversight by their senior mentors. While manuscript preparation and publication are excellent learning opportunities, this part of education should not be balanced on the journal editorial staff. Furthermore, supervising mentors who provide no oversight have abdicated their responsibility.
In summary, author should revise manuscripts using the following steps: 1) Follow guide for authors as well as specific reviewer or editor instructions; 2) Examine all reviewer comments; 3) Respond to each comment; 4) Highlight changes in yellow rather than via track changes; and 5) Proofread your revision prior to submitting. These steps will aid preparation of revised work with increased likelihood of acceptance.