Once your research article makes it past the editors and is sent out for review, RHM has four categories of decisions:

  • Accept with revisions
  • Revisions requested
  • Resubmit for Review
  • Reject

An option in the software system we use to manage RHM, “revisions requested” is not a common decision category for other journals. Thus, having this option forced us to think through more specific explanations for each category for authors and reviewers alike.

Accept with Revisions

Manuscripts given this decision are viewed by both reviewers and editors as publishable with minor revisions (e.g., clarifications of terms and ideas, additional examples, stylistic changes, and additional transitions). If the suggested revisions are completed—preferably relatively quickly—the manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

Revisions Requested

Manuscripts given this decision are viewed as having strong promise for publication, and the editors and reviewers would very much like to see a revised manuscript. The revisions requested do not require the author(s) to re-envision the manuscript or re-shape it in some fundamental way, but rather to make significant changes to the existing argument and structure. To put it another way, the scope of requested revisions is between a major re-envisioning and minor revisions.

Resubmit for Review

While this decision can apply to manuscripts that vary in their readiness, it indicates that the editors and at least one reviewer see some promise in the manuscript and encourage a revision. This decision also indicates that the requested revision would entail a major re-envisioning and re-shaping of the manuscript’s approach and argument, such as the methodology, theoretical framework, analysis, or connection to RHM and other relevant scholarly conversations. In most cases, we will ask for a resubmission within 8 weeks in order to keep the manuscript in the review system rather than reject it. We advise authors who receive this decision and who wish to resubmit to speak with the editors about planned revisions that are based on the decision letter.


Manuscripts given this decision are viewed by the reviewers and editors as substantially underdeveloped, not making significant contributions to the field’s knowledge, and/or not appropriate or suited for the journal (given its stated focus and scope).