Revision Process

Authors invited to revise should respond to the decision letter and keep a clear record of every change they make. An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance. Revisions are limited to a maximum of three cycles, as described in the [Peer Review Process].

1. Revision Package
Each revision should include:

• a clean revised manuscript in an editable format, such as .docx, as specified in the [Author Guidelines];
• a point-by-point response that addresses every editor and reviewer comment;
• a marked version showing the changes, where the editor requests one. Before uploading, check tracked changes and document properties for any identifying information;
• updated supplementary files or declarations affected by the revision, where applicable.

Upload the revision to the existing submission in the journal’s system, unless the decision letter explicitly asks for a new submission. The anonymity of the review files must be maintained, as set out in the [Author Guidelines].

2. Point-by-Point Response
Restate or accurately summarize each comment, explain how you have responded to it, and identify where the change appears by section, page, or line number. Keep responses to different reviewers separate.

Authors may respectfully disagree with a recommendation. In that case, explain the scholarly reasoning and provide supporting evidence rather than leaving the comment unanswered. If a request is unclear or conflicts with another, refer it to the handling editor for clarification.

Suggested structure for each response:

Comment: [Reviewer or editor comment]
Response: [Explanation or scholarly justification]
Change and location: [Revised text or description, with its location]

3. Deadlines and Author Approval
The decision letter states the revision deadline. If you need more time, request an extension before the deadline, explaining the work that remains and proposing a realistic completion date.

If the deadline passes, the journal may contact the author for an update and will give notice before closing an inactive submission. Authors should not assume that silence means withdrawal, nor treat it as permission to submit the manuscript elsewhere.

All authors must approve substantive revisions. Changes to authorship must follow the [Authorship and Contributorship] procedure and must not be made only by editing the revised file.

4. Reassessment
The handling editor checks the revision and the response. Minor changes may be assessed by the editor alone. Substantial methodological, analytical, or interpretive changes normally require further external review. The original reviewers may be invited again, or replacements may be selected under the [Reviewer Selection] policy.

Reassessment considers whether the concerns have been resolved and whether the revision has introduced new problems. Any new request must be relevant and justified. Further rounds may be necessary, but reaching a later round does not guarantee acceptance. The next decision is issued by the authorized editor under the [Decision Process].

Corrections to proofs after acceptance belong to the production stage and do not replace the approval needed for substantive new changes to the research.