We submitted a manuscript to a well-known journal. The first round of reviews came in 6 months later. We revised, resubmitted in about 3 weeks (they gave us two weeks to r&r) and we got a new, minor revisions (after 3 months) asking us to do something that wouldn't take much time: add a couple of references and briefly discuss a point in future work. They gave us again 2 weeks to resubmit.

We only took 2 days to incorporate the changes, but I don't want the editor to think that we didn't pay enough attention to the points. We did, they were just minor comments.

Should I wait to resubmit, even though I know that I've already finished them?


6 Answers 6


You should send it back when ready. If the comments have been addressed, it will be evident, and that is all that matters. Nobody assumes you are spending the entirety of your allotted time working on revisions.


There is no advantage in waiting and lots of reasons to speed the process. Don’t play mind games with the editor.

  • 4
    xD I'm pretty senior, really, but this question has always plagued me. Advice from my mentor in a US institution. "Don't play mind games with X", in academia, is the funniest thing I've ever heard. But thanks for the less snarky reply. Commented May 21 at 15:31

Just want to point out that the two weeks you're given to revise the manuscript is probably not customized by the editor. Most probably it's just the default amount of time for minor revision decisions. (Major revision decisions get another standard amount of time.)

If you send it back in two weeks, then you effectively delay peer review for your paper by two weeks. Unless you have reason to do that, you might as well just send it back now. They're not likely to think much about it, if they notice it at all.

  • 2
    I agree with you 100%. It's one of those things I took at face value from my advisor. Never really found a proper venue to discuss it. Maybe it's an "old professor" thing, who knows. Commented May 21 at 15:47
  • 1
    @DervinThunk: To be clear, the advisor recommended delaying, or not? Commented May 22 at 0:27
  • 1
    He recommended "taking all the allowed time", yes. Commented May 22 at 11:31

As editor I'm happy to get papers done and off my desk (or rather the editorial system). Furthermore if I ask for Minor Revisions I strongly believe that ultimately the paper will be accepted and things to do are pretty straightforward, and I don't like to be proven wrong in this respect. So if I get a revision after two days and issues are in fact satisfactorily addressed, I'll be happy about that if anything. Why would I decide based on anything other than the content of the paper? That doesn't make sense to me.


Even if it's obvious that the revision should take a day (or less) to implement, the editor will give you at least two weeks, just in case you can't spare a day right now. (You might, for example, be marking exams.) If you send it back more promptly, they will likely be pleased that they happened to catch you at a less busy time.

So it's to your advantage to send it back as soon as you're happy with the revision.¹ The only real effect of delaying is that there may be a knock-on delay of uncertain length to the final publication date.

¹ except in some special cases where you want to delay, for example so that the paper counts towards a different reporting period.


I, myself, have done this, and it was never a problem (a few times, the turnaround was same-day). In fact, I’m willing to bet the editor appreciates your expeditiousness, as it also speeds things up on their (the journal’s) end. That said, congratulations to all of you on your soon-to-be accepted paper!

You must log in to answer this question.

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