Read an initial editorial decision and choose a proportionate response

1. Separate the letter from assumptions about it

ICMJE explains that a journal need not send every submission for external review and that the editor retains the selection decision. Read the letter for its stated reasons and any conditions for further consideration. Avoid interpreting a portal label as more detailed evidence than it provides.

Save the decision date, manuscript identifier, sender, attachments and version under consideration. Identify whether the letter closes the submission, requests a technical correction, invites revision or permits a particular resubmission. When that status is unclear, formulate one focused question for the editorial office. Do not infer a reviewer count or a scientific verdict from how quickly an email arrived.

Reference: ICMJE: submission and peer-review responsibilities

2. Work through three fictional letters

Case A says: “Please complete the missing data-availability field before we continue processing.” The portal still lists the submission as awaiting author action. Case B says: “We decline this manuscript because its topic is outside the journal’s stated scope.” It offers no revision invitation. Case C says: “The manuscript does not describe a comparison group.” The submitted Table 1 actually lists two observational groups; whether the editor saw that table is unknown.

These facts support different responses. A requires a truthful field entry and a check of the submission instructions. B supports reconsidering the destination and any substantive feedback. C supports identifying the exact discrepancy and checking whether clarification or appeal is available. The presence of two groups does not transform an observational study into a randomized trial or resolve every possible editorial concern.

On small screens, scroll the table horizontally, or focus it and use the arrow keys.

3. Correct what the evidence supports

For Case A, find out why the field is empty. A missing data-availability statement may require a decision from the data custodian, not merely a sentence from the corresponding author. If access terms are unresolved, say so internally and obtain the necessary decision. Do not invent open availability or upload restricted data to make the checklist appear complete.

For Case B, compare the study’s actual question with the next journal’s scope and article types. Revise the package around a truthful fit. Preserve useful methodological criticism even when changing destinations. Maintain a record of which concerns were addressed, which remain open and who checked the revision. A new cover letter cannot repair an unperformed analysis or an unsupported conclusion.

4. Consider an appeal only against the relevant process

PLOS One provides one concrete example: its appeals policy sets specified grounds and a written procedure; a manuscript under appeal remains under consideration there. This is a journal-specific rule. Read the complete current policy for the destination before choosing an appeal or starting another submission.

For Case C, prepare a short evidence note containing the original decision sentence, the submitted file version and the location of the two groups in Table 1. State the point that may need clarification and what remains unknown. Ask whether correcting that understanding would affect the decision. Avoid alleging bias or misconduct because the letter appears to overlook a table; a discrepancy needs assessment, not an invented motive.

Reference: PLOS One: editorial process, review history and appeals

5. Make one coordinated team decision

Circulate the factual summary to the coauthors before sending conflicting responses from different accounts. Assign one corresponding contact and record the agreed action. Keep scientific disagreement, administrative questions and any concern about conduct separate so the recipient can identify the issue being raised. Include only the private material needed by the authorised editorial recipient.

Do not describe a submission as closed while simultaneously pursuing a process that keeps it under consideration. Check the actual status and applicable rules before submitting elsewhere. If the team needs more time to decide, record who is resolving each missing fact. Uncertainty about the next step should remain visible rather than being converted into an assumption of permission.

6. Keep a useful decision record

Close the internal record with the chosen action, its basis, the responsible person and the response received, if any. Separate a prepared message from a sent message, and a received acknowledgement from a new editorial decision. If the team chooses another journal, retain the corrected manuscript and its unresolved scientific issues as distinct parts of the handoff.

The purpose is to learn from the particular decision without turning it into a forecast about all journals. A scope rejection at one destination does not establish that another will accept the work. A successful clarification also does not establish that all requirements are satisfied. The next submission should make only claims supported by its own evidence and confirmed author decisions.

Questions for a practical final check

• Actual letter and submitted version saved.
• Decision and technical return distinguished.
• Each reason mapped to evidence.
• Applicable appeal or resubmission policy checked.
• One corresponding contact and action agreed.
• Prepared, sent and decided states recorded separately.