hlr-revision-and-editing

Revision and Editing (hlr-revision-and-editing)

After acceptance, an HLR piece goes through an intensive, multi-round editing cycle run by student editors — heavier and more iterative than at most journals. There is no single "R&R letter" as in peer review; instead there are successive passes (substantive, technical/line, Bluebook, proofs), each with deadlines. This skill keeps the cycle moving, protects the argument across rounds, and lands the piece in print without late surprises.

When to trigger

• The substantive edit is underway and rounds are stacking up
• You receive markups, queries, or new source-pull requests between rounds
• You disagree with a proposed change and must respond across a round
• Page proofs arrive and need a careful final pass

The edit cycle (round by round)

Round	Focus	Author's job
Substantive round(s)	Strengthen the argument; close gaps editors flagged	Revise on the merits; defend with reasons where warranted
Technical / line round	Prose, clarity, house style	Approve or push back on specific edits, not en masse
Bluebook / cite round	Every footnote conformed and verified	Supply pincites/sources fast; fix unsupportable claims
Page proofs	Final typeset, last corrections	Catch errors; make only essential changes

Working the cycle well

1. Resolve substance before style. Settle the argument-level edits early; do not relitigate them once the piece moves to line and Bluebook rounds.
2. Track every change across rounds. Edits move footnotes and text; a fix in round one can break an Id. or a cross-reference in round three. Re-verify short forms after each round (see hlr-sources-and-bluebook).
3. Respond comprehensively, not selectively. Address every query in a round; partial responses cause another round and slip the schedule.
4. Keep a clean change log. Note what you accepted, what you pushed back on, and why — it prevents re-arguing settled points and helps the next editor.
5. Protect the voice and the claim; concede the rest. Defend substance and signature phrasing with reasons; concede style and formatting to keep goodwill and momentum.
6. Proof carefully, change minimally. At proofs, fix errors — do not reopen the argument.

Deadlines and momentum

The cycle runs on the journal's production calendar. Responsiveness is the variable you control: fast, complete returns keep the piece on schedule and signal good faith; slow returns stall it and strain the team. Build in time for the source-pull rounds, which are the most labor-intensive for the author.

Checklist

• Substantive edits resolved before line/Bluebook rounds
• Every query in each round answered (no partial returns)
• Short forms / cross-references re-verified after each round of moves
• Source-pull requests answered with exact pincites, fast
• Change log kept (accepted / pushed back / why)
• Argument and voice protected; style conceded
• Page proofs reviewed for errors only

Anti-patterns

• Reopening settled substantive edits during the line or Bluebook round
• Partial responses that trigger extra rounds and slip the calendar
• Leaving dangling Id./supra after footnotes were reordered in a round
• Fighting every line edit and exhausting editor goodwill
• Introducing new argument at page proofs

Output format

【Round】substantive / technical / Bluebook / proofs
【Open queries】count + the hard ones
【Short forms re-verified】after this round's moves? [Y/N]
【Change log】updated (accepted / pushed back / why)? [Y/N]
【Deadline】next return date
【Next】next round → publication (loop hlr-student-editor-review for relationship issues)

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — HLR editorial process and publication schedule
• ../../resources/external_tools.md — change-tracking and citation-management tools for the cycle