Direct comparison
Reject & Resubmit vs. Revise & Resubmit
How reject-and-resubmit differs from revise-and-resubmit: new manuscript number, possible new reviewers, no guaranteed outcome, vs. the same open submission.
Written and maintained by CASRAI Editorial Board
Last updated
Ask CASRAI · included with Regulatory Radar
Ask about Reject & Resubmit vs. Revise & Resubmit
Ask CASRAI answers research-administration questions and cites the passages behind every claim — and says so when the corpus does not cover something, instead of guessing. It comes with a Regulatory Radar subscription at $29 a month, alongside the daily digest of regulatory changes and the dashboard of what changed.
150 questions a day, on this site, over the API, or inside your own tools through the CASRAI MCP server.
Everything CASRAI publishes — this page, the dictionary, the guides and the news — stays free to read, with no account and no card.
How do Reject and Resubmit, Revise and Resubmit (R&R) compare side by side?
The table below compares Reject and Resubmit, Revise and Resubmit (R&R) across 9 procurement-relevant dimensions, from what it formally is through how to spot it in the letter.
Side-by-side comparison
| Dimension | Reject and Resubmit | Revise and Resubmit (R&R) |
|---|---|---|
| What it formally is | A rejection decision, with an invitation to submit a reworked manuscript later | A conditional continuation of the same open submission |
| Original submission status | Closed out as a rejection | Stays open; revision logged against it |
| Manuscript number | New number assigned on resubmission | Same manuscript ID retained |
| Priority / submission date | Generally lost; resubmission gets a new date | Original submission date generally preserved |
| Reviewers on the next round | May be the same, but not guaranteed -- editor can assign new reviewers | Typically returns to the same reviewers who saw the first version |
| Signal to the author | Still formally a rejection, even if framed encouragingly | Generally a positive signal -- editor sees a plausible path to acceptance |
| Revision deadline | No formal deadline; treated as a fresh submission whenever ready | Journal typically sets an explicit revision window in the decision letter |
| Typical trigger | Changes needed are extensive enough that the editor wants to close and restart the record, even while remaining interested in the underlying work | Concerns are substantive but addressable within the existing submission |
| How to spot it in the letter | Language of "reject," "declined," or "submit as a new submission" with a new manuscript number | References the existing manuscript ID and reviewer comments without rejection language |
Common questions
Common questions about Reject and Resubmit vs Revise and Resubmit (R&R)
Is reject and resubmit the same as a rejection?
+
Yes, formally. The original submission is closed out as a rejection. The accompanying invitation to resubmit a reworked version is a separate, optional next step, not a guarantee tied to the current record.
Will I get the same reviewers if I choose to resubmit after a reject-and-resubmit decision?
+
Not guaranteed. Editors sometimes keep the original reviewers for continuity, and sometimes deliberately assign different reviewers to get a fresh read on a substantially reworked manuscript. Ask the handling editor if it matters to your planning.
Which decision is more favorable for eventually getting published?
+
Revise and resubmit is generally the more favorable signal, since the editor is keeping the existing submission open rather than closing it. A reject-and-resubmit is a genuine rejection of the current submission, even when the editor expresses interest in seeing a reworked version -- treat it accordingly rather than as a soft R&R.
How do I know which decision I actually received if the letter is ambiguous?
+
Look for whether the letter uses rejection language and whether it mentions a new manuscript number or treats the next version as a new submission. If it is still unclear, ask the handling editor directly before investing significant revision time.
