jep-revision

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

• Each editor comment mapped to a concrete change and location
• Accessibility and balance edits treated as binding (alternatives, not refusals)
• Length cuts removed coverage, not the through-line or key exhibits
• No simplification silently overstated a result
• Symposium scope respected (if applicable)
• Reply letter is short, point-by-point, collaborative

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