I got almost twice as much new data for my paper. But I didn’t have this when I submitted — Will the editor/referees get angry if I redo everything for the revision. This will change sample size and other results.
I’d like to do this to see if my results hold in a larger sample. If so, I’ll feel more comfortable. If not, I’ll just be honest and tell the editor to drop R&R.
thoughts?
Why not just redo your analysis with your larger data sets for yourself.
Then, if your current results don't hold up, you can withdraw the manuscript. If they do hold up, then you can feel more comfortable.
In either case, change a manuscript in the midst of a review process, that isn't for the purpose of addressing the reviewers' concerns, after reviewers have already put their efforts to referee the current version, isn't a good idea.
Why not just redo your analysis with your larger data sets for yourself.
Then, if your current results don't hold up, you can withdraw the manuscript. If they do hold up, then you can feel more comfortable.
In either case, change a manuscript in the midst of a review process, that isn't for the purpose of addressing the reviewers' concerns, after reviewers have already put their efforts to referee the current version, isn't a good idea.
What’s the problem if the results hold up?
Why not just redo your analysis with your larger data sets for yourself.
Then, if your current results don't hold up, you can withdraw the manuscript. If they do hold up, then you can feel more comfortable.
In either case, change a manuscript in the midst of a review process, that isn't for the purpose of addressing the reviewers' concerns, after reviewers have already put their efforts to referee the current version, isn't a good idea.What’s the problem if the results hold up?
In either case, you're asking reviewers to consider a manuscript that now is based on a different data set, which will then cause a delay in the review process since the data in their new entirety will have to be reconsidered.
If you want to get papers published, then you need to know when to end a project and move on to the next. For most sane people, that usually happens after a manuscript is submitted. Are you going to continue to collect new data, and then revise it yet a third and 4th time?
Just stick with what has already been reviews, and addressing the specific issues raised by the reviewers. Nothing more, nothing less.
Why not just redo your analysis with your larger data sets for yourself.
Then, if your current results don't hold up, you can withdraw the manuscript. If they do hold up, then you can feel more comfortable.
In either case, change a manuscript in the midst of a review process, that isn't for the purpose of addressing the reviewers' concerns, after reviewers have already put their efforts to referee the current version, isn't a good idea.What’s the problem if the results hold up?
In either case, you're asking reviewers to consider a manuscript that now is based on a different data set, which will then cause a delay in the review process since the data in their new entirety will have to be reconsidered.
If you want to get papers published, then you need to know when to end a project and move on to the next. For most sane people, that usually happens after a manuscript is submitted. Are you going to continue to collect new data, and then revise it yet a third and 4th time?
Just stick with what has already been reviews, and addressing the specific issues raised by the reviewers. Nothing more, nothing less.
No