7

I recently got my first Major Revision and I would like to share the good news, but I'm not sure if there is a non spoken rule that you shouldn't be publicly sharing that info during the review process due to anonymity concerns.

For context, I'm a Business PhD Candidate going to the Job Market this year. At least in Business, getting a MR at a top journal is very useful when going to the job market. I have heard people comment in getting a MR starting their talks or in informal conversations, on their website, but not on LinkedIn...that I remember. Is it because it is not big enough news, that academics are not that into LinkedIn, that it is frowned upon, I just haven't seen it? And more concretely, is there a rule that would discourage sharing this information?

4
  • 43
    Can you explain what you meant by "got a Major Revision"? To me, it sounds like you submitted a paper and the reviewers said it needs major revisions, which is not anything to celebrate. "Accepted with minor revisions" or simply "Accepted" would be more worthy of celebration.
    – shoover
    Commented May 10 at 17:57
  • 6
    Depends on the field I suppose, but in most cases a major revision on your first submission is a good sign - especially if the journal is respected.
    – Taw
    Commented May 10 at 19:21
  • 7
    As @Taw mentioned, in top journals in business it is deemed as a good sign to get a Major Revision. It practically doesn't happen getting an Accepted with minor or Accepted on a 1st Round Revision. Commented May 10 at 19:42
  • 1
    @shoover the situation is similar in Statistics, where the overwhelming majority of submissions to top journals (annals, jasa, biometrika and jrss, for instance) do not even make it past the editor, such that a Major Revision decision is seen as a very promising development. Commented May 12 at 16:35

2 Answers 2

30

This falls into the category of end zone celebrations following touchdowns in US football. Act like you've been in the end zone before, and that you expect to be there a whole lot more times before you retire.

The common way of indicating the status your manuscript is in right now is "in review". Use that term in your CV and on LinkedIn. This is a signal to people that see it that it means more than a cheesy "in preparation" paper (which means next to nothing), but that there's still some daylight between the paper and publication. If you hadn't yet received any outcome of the review process, the status would be "submitted".

If the message you got from the editor were a tad bit stronger, something along the lines of "I'll accept your paper without further review if you address the referees' concerns", you might choose to list the paper as "accepted pending revision" or some such. When you hear notification that the paper is accepted, then (unless the paper is made rapidly available online), the status is "accepted".

Anonymity concerns don't really apply here. The bigger concern is that the representation of the paper sort of highlights naivete.

3
  • 3
    I like the approach of "in review" signaling a further stage than just submitted, while not naively making a big deal out of it because it might still not get accepted. Do you think "accepted pending revision" is upon the interpretation of the authors? I would only assume that for a Minor Revision stage paper, at least in my field. Commented May 10 at 19:44
  • @ImplingDig1 -- Yes, there could certainly be an author's interpretation in there, but not necessarily in my recommended use case. I, personally, would reserve that description for cases where any hangup is largely administrative. I wouldn't recommend using "accepted pending ..." (where the ellipsis could be anything) unless there were language in a communication from the deciding editor saying "accepted". I would never use the term if it were clear the ms would go back to a referee following revision. There are limited fair scenarios for it's use, an was included for completeness. Commented May 10 at 19:53
  • 1
    @ImplingDig1 Some editors/journals do give a notification like "accepted pending revision" so you should not assert that unless the editor/journal explicitly tells you so. Many papers with positive reports get resubmit requests but then end up being rejected in the end.
    – Kimball
    Commented May 11 at 14:40
16

Articles with major revisions can still be rejected. Wouldn't it be a bit embarrassing to make a big deal then have to admit it was rejected? I would just say "under review" which implies it was at least not desk rejected by the editor and leave it at that.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .