Making an Editorial Decision

Editors are responsible for making manuscript decisions based upon reviewer reports and their own reading of the manuscript. In the majority of cases, at least two reports will be received which are broadly in agreement, making it possible to assess reviewer comments easily and reach a straightforward decision.

When rejecting a manuscript, whether before or after peer review, we consider it important to provide authors with reasons for rejection and feedback that can be used to improve their work in the future.

If there are concerns regarding the soundness of the study that cannot be addressed or revisions would amount to an entirely new study, the manuscript should be rejected without an invitation to resubmit (Reject after review).

You should request a revision if you feel the manuscript is likely to be acceptable for publication after some changes and modifications. The authors will be sent the comments of the reviewers and Editor and asked to revise accordingly.

Which Reviewer Requests are Acceptable?

When contacting authors, you are encouraged to write a brief paragraph mentioning anything you would particularly like them to focus on when revising their manuscript.

Further experiments may be needed to support the claims in the manuscript, but although these may  be ideal, they may not be essential for the paper itself. If additional data are requested by the reviewers, please state clearly in your summary which points are essential for the soundness of the manuscript. A manuscript could be suitable for publication even if it doesn’t reach the ‘gold standard’, especially if authors can discuss the limitations of their work as an alternative. It may be possible for authors to avoid over-interpreting their results and to highlight where further work is needed rather than produce further experiments, validation or controls.

If you recommend revisions on a manuscript you will be notified once the revised manuscript is resubmitted. At that stage, you should decide whether the manuscript may be accepted without re-review or whether you need further advice from the original reviewers.

If you feel that re-review is required, it can save time to ask original reviewers to feedback on any specific points you are unsure about.

How Many Revisions Should be Allowed?

We would normally allow authors to make only two rounds of revision to avoid a lengthy peer-review process, which can become frustrating for authors and reviewers alike. 

If further revisions would not make the manuscript acceptable, it should simply be rejected.

When reviewers disagree in their assessment of the work, you may be able to reach a decision without seeking further advice by considering the expertise of the reviewers. We ask that you read the concerns that reviewers raise and be aware that one reviewer may highlight an issue not raised by another due to differing expertise in a particular subject matter.

It is not unusual to be able to reach a straightforward decision (even if reviewers have opposing views) by taking into account your own knowledge of the subject area and interpretation of the manuscript, together with the expertise of the reviewers. However, if you are still unsure how to proceed please contact our in-house Editor for further guidance. It may be necessary to seek further advice from an independent third reviewer or request advice from one of our senior Editorial Board members.

If the authors have already revised in response to initial reviews, it is preferable to seek further advice on specific points of disagreement only, rather than seeking a whole new report from an independent third reviewer.

Though our in-house team of Editors checks for any Ethical concerns prior to assigning manuscripts to the External Board Members, it is possible that reviewers may spot some additional concerns and raise those in their reviews. If there are any concerns with regard to the ethical framework of the research (such as a lack of participant consent, lack of ethical approval for the work, or concerns that the severity of the experiments carried out is not justified by the value of the knowledge gained) or possible research or author misconduct, please raise these with your journal contact as soon as possible and before making your editorial decision. 

We aim to support authors who may struggle to get good results published because their written English or the presentation of their results is not of a sufficient standard. We do not, therefore, encourage rejection of a manuscript on the basis of the standard of English alone, unless it is of very poor quality or the authors have had an opportunity to improve the manuscript but have not met the required standard.  At the same time, Editors and reviewers should not be expected to copy edit the language themselves. Instead, we recommend that Editors advise authors to make improvements to the English language as part of their revisions or before sending for review, if necessary. Please also note that if manuscript is accepted, level 1 copy edit is automatically provided by our Production team on all manuscripts.  

To assist authors in addressing language concerns, we have collated free resources and advice on how to prepare the language in their manuscript. Authors can also use any reputable English language editing service, such as those provided by our affiliates Nature Research Editing Service and American Journal Experts. BMC authors are entitled to a 10% discount on their first submission to either of these services. Please note that the use of an editing service is at the author's own expense, and is neither a requirement nor a guarantee of publication.