I wrote a paper that is a literature review. It has been accepted with minor revisions. However, I when I read it again - 3 months after submitting it, and thus, 3 months without thinking about it - I noticed passages that could still be improved. I know that a paper is never perfect, but I am itching to add some enhancement...

So I wonder how much it is acceptable to improve it now, beyond modifications pointed out by reviewers’ comments (i.e. on parts that are already ok according to reviewers).

I can think of 3 types of improvements:

  1. Fixing typos, that had also been missed by reviewers,
  2. Style, phrasing improvements,
  3. Adding new information (e.g. a paper that I’ve discovered since I’ve submitted my paper).

Since it is my first paper, I do not want to give the impression of having submitted an unfinished work the first time.

  • If you have to make all 3 types of improvements, go ahead and revise it.. – NVZ Jul 19 '16 at 10:00
  • Since it is not the final accepted version, you ca do all of these. Also, you should point the changes in the manuscript. For a clear answer to the referee suggestions, you can extract and cite all the changes in your work. – Nikey Mike Jul 19 '16 at 10:08
  • @NVZ I only have minor revisions to do. My question is more focused on parts of my paper that -- according to reviewers -- do not require modification, but that I still would like to improve. – ebosi Jul 19 '16 at 10:10