The
Relevance
How relevant is the manuscript to the journal in question?
Originality/Novelty
Is the research novel and innovative? Is the work significantly different or markedly better than previously reported science?
Importance
Is the work and presented solutions relevant and significant to the scientific field?
Technical soundness
Is the work technically sound? Is the concept and experiments correct and accurate? Is the physics correct? This is an assessment of the reliability and trustworthiness of your data and claims!
Clarity
Is the manuscript and techniques presented clearly?
The referees will provide comments in relation to these criteria which should be constructive, meaningful and respectful of the manuscript, whilst making a justified, clear assessment of the work.
The reviewers will recommend if their opinions on the fitness of the manuscript for publication, and, once all comments have been collected, the Editor will write to you with a decision about your manuscript, enclosing anonymous referee reports. The following outlines possible Editor Decisions and some general recommended responses, though these will of course vary depending on individual circumstances and should be discussed with co-authors and supervisors.
Rejected
Don’t worry, it happens. Take the criticism constructively - go to next journal on your list and begin afresh. Reformat your article adhering to the new guide to authors: (remember reference styles etc). It is important that you do make changes based on reviewer comments (if plausible). Reviewers are independent of Journals, therefore you could realistically end up with the same reviewer the second time round. See Dealing with rejection for more information.
Look out for reading between the line phrases from Editors: the ‘ We cannot accept your paper in its current for, but if you do decide to resubmit, then we would only consider a substantial revision' can be read as a rejection but translated into an invitation to resubmit...!
Accepted with minor revisions
Minor revisions are recommended for manuscripts which make a clear and sound contribution, but require a few small changes to ensure it is fully fit for publication. This usually includes textual changes based on clarification of minor points or sentences, abbreviations, minor revision to figures for clarity. Etc. The manuscript often does not require a second review, and can be seen as ‘conditionally accepted’ upon these revisions.
Accepted with major revisions
Major revisions are recommended for manuscripts which have a clear contribution, relevance and intrest, but requires significant contributions, improvement or further justification of technical quality or presentation, ie. rewriting of Methodology, further simulations required to run, or that additional data which can be gathered quickly is required. The manuscript most likely requires second review, and even when carefully revised and responded to may not be accepted, however is still open to acceptance; a tricky one!.
Accepted as is
This is very rare, well done you ;) !
Making changes
Change and modify the text where it makes sense. Whilst it is not required to make every suggested change, it is necessary to address all comments, therefore you must have good reason for rejecting a suggestion.
For minor revisions, it is probably best in these circumstances to simply get on with making such revisions without too much argument. If you complete these revisions quickly, it will likely help get a speedy acceptance whilst the paper is still fresh.
Revisions in regard to major revisions can be more difficult to implement and respond to. Work hard at reading and fully understanding the referee comments and replying to each reviewer fully. Assistance in responding to Referee comments can be found below. This process can be time-consuming, trying and fiddly to write, but it is worthwhile in the long run: ensuring the paper is accepted and is a better paper at the end of the process.