Revision (jep-revision)
When to trigger
- A JEP editor's letter arrived asking for changes (not an anonymous referee report)
- The edits center on accessibility, balance, framing, or length — the JEP levers
- The managing editor returned a heavily marked-up draft
- You need to plan the revision and a concise reply to the editorial team
How JEP revision differs
JEP review is editor-driven and hands-on, so revision is a conversation with the editors and managing editor, not a rebuttal to hidden referees. The edits will almost always be about how the piece communicates — is it accessible enough, balanced enough, well-framed, and the right length — rather than new identification or robustness. The right posture is responsive and collaborative: the editors are protecting the broad-audience mission, and on accessibility calls they are usually right.
Triaging the editor's letter
| Editor concern |
What it usually means |
The fix (skill) |
| "Still too technical / for specialists" |
jargon/notation/assumed knowledge remains |
jep-accessibility-and-translation |
| "Reads as advocacy / one-sided" |
competing views or uncertainty underplayed |
jep-balance-and-objectivity |
| "We lose the thread / what's the argument?" |
structure is a survey, no through-line |
jep-narrative-arc |
| "Too long / cut to length" |
exhaustive coverage, not a focused essay |
jep-editor-strategy (cut coverage, keep clarity) |
| "Tighten the prose / abstract" |
voice dull; abstract has machinery |
jep-writing-style |
| "Exhibits are dense" |
research-paper figures/tables |
jep-exhibits-for-general-readers |
Building the revision
-
Take accessibility and balance notes as binding. These are JEP's core; argue only if a change would make the piece wrong, and then propose an accessible alternative, not a refusal.
-
Cut coverage before clarity. When trimming length, remove exhaustiveness and tangents; protect the through-line, the load-bearing examples, and the few essential exhibits.
-
Preserve honesty under pressure to simplify. If an edit risks overstating a finding, flag it and offer wording that stays accurate (cross-check
jep-balance-and-objectivity and jep-evidence-without-equations).
-
Keep the symposium frame if applicable — don't expand into a companion piece's territory while revising.
The reply letter (to the editorial team)
-
Short, point-by-point, and warm. Map each editorial comment to what you changed and where.
-
Lead with agreement. Note the edits you simply made; reserve discussion for the few you handled differently, with a brief reason and an accessible alternative.
-
No referee-style combativeness. This is a collaborative edit, not an adversarial rebuttal.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- Replying to a hands-on editor as if rebutting an anonymous referee
- Resisting accessibility edits ("the experts need this") instead of finding an accessible version
- Cutting clarity (examples, the argument's spine) to hit a length target while keeping exhaustive coverage
- Letting a "make it punchier" edit push the claims past what the evidence supports
- A long, defensive reply letter that re-litigates settled calls
Output format
【Letter type】editor/managing-editor edits (not anonymous referees)
【Top concerns】accessibility / balance / framing / length / prose / exhibits
【Per-comment plan】comment → change → location
【Binding edits done】[accessibility + balance items]
【Length plan】cut coverage; protect through-line + key exhibits
【Honesty check】no edit overstated a finding? [Y/N]
【Reply letter】short, point-by-point, collaborative? [Y/N]
【Next step】return to jep-workflow if a new bottleneck surfaces
