Will the journal revise the article according to the feedback from the reviewers?

Journal editorial teams typically expect authors to revise manuscripts based on reviewer feedback before acceptance. Revisions are a standard and often mandatory part of the peer-review process, aimed at enhancing the manuscript's quality and suitability for publication. Revision requests are issued formally by the editor after synthesizing reviewer comments. Authors are required to provide a point-by-point response explaining how each comment was addressed and submit a revised manuscript detailing all changes. The editor, often with the original reviewers, then reassesses the revised submission; inadequate responses can lead to further revision requests or rejection. The scope involves all substantive aspects outlined by the reviewers and editor. Key conditions for successful revision include author compliance with requested changes, thoroughness in responses, and adherence to timelines. The revision process underpins the credibility of scholarly publishing. By facilitating targeted improvements to methodology, clarity, argumentation, and literature coverage, it significantly elevates the manuscript's rigor, accuracy, and contribution. This crucial stage transforms a submitted draft into a validated contribution that enhances the journal's scholarly record and ensures readers receive reliable research.