Revision - AMA Manual of Style

Subscriber Login

  • This account has no valid subscription for this site.

Forgotten your password?

Show Summary Details
Page of



Editorial Assessment and Processing

Richard M. Glass

Page of

PRINTED FROM AMA MANUAL OF STYLE ONLINE ( © American Medical Association, 2009. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the license agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in AMA Manual of Style Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy). 

Subscriber: null; date: 28 September 2016


If an editorial decision is made to request revision of a submitted manuscript, the author should receive specific recommendations from the editor about how to improve the paper, in addition to receiving the comments of the peer reviewers. Guidance from the editor is particularly important if recommendations from the peer reviewers are discordant. The revision process is also the appropriate time for the editor to make suggestions regarding condensing the manuscript and requests for additional data or analyses, and to obtain required authorship, funding, and conflict of interest statements. Authors are usually requested to submit a list of the revisions completed and the reasons for any suggested revisions not undertaken when they return the revised manuscript. As previously noted (see 6.1.1, Editorial Decisions), the editor should make it clear that a revision will require editorial evaluation and possibly additional peer review, so no promise of acceptance for publication can be made in advance of that assessment. Unless there is a compelling reason for the revised paper to be evaluated by a new reviewer, peer review of a revision (if it is necessary in the editor’s judgment) should usually be done by the original peer reviewers, who, along with the reviewing editor, are in the best position to evaluate the success of the revision process.

Previous | Next