Revising Your Manuscript
When you revise your manuscript, upload your revised submission to the submission system and include the materials listed on this page.
We recommend that you refer to our checklist of formatting requirements before resubmitting in order to expedite your manuscript through the technical checks. Download the formatting checklist (PDF).
Address the specific points made by each reviewer. Include your responses to all the reviewers’ and editors’ comments and list the changes you have made to the manuscript. Remember, if you choose to publish the peer review history of your manuscript, your response to reviewers will appear online alongside the final article. Upload this document as a “Response to reviewers” file.
Include a marked-up copy of your manuscript file showing the changes you have made since the original submission. The best way to show these changes is the “Track Changes” option in Microsoft Word. Upload this as a "Revised Article with Changes Highlighted” file.
Upload a clean copy of your revised manuscript that does not show your changes. Upload this as your “Manuscript” file.
Upload a TIFF or EPS file for each figure if you have not already done so. Read the figure guidelines for more information about figure requirements at revision.
How to submit your revised manuscript in Editorial Manager
We ask that all authors of research articles that are revised following peer-review write a short non-technical summary of their research for non-expert readers. The Author Summary will be included as part of the manuscript to immediately follow the Abstract in published articles.
The aim of the Author Summary is to make your findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. Authors should aim to highlight where the research study fits within a broader context and present the significance or possible implications of the study simply and objectively. Authors should avoid the use of acronyms and complex terminology wherever possible. The text is subject to editorial change and should not simply repeat text from the abstract or manuscript.
We ask authors to provide 2-3 single sentence bullet points for each of the following questions. Bullet points should be objective, brief, succinct, specific, accurate, and avoid technical language.
Why Was This Study Done? Authors should reflect on what was known about the topic before the research was published and why the research was needed.
What Did the Researchers Do and Find? Authors should briefly describe the study design that was used and the study’s major findings. Do include the headline numbers from the study, such as the sample size and key findings.
What Do These Findings Mean? Authors should reflect on the new knowledge generated by the research and the implications for practice, research, policy, or public health. Authors should also consider how the interpretation of the study’s findings may be affected by the study limitations.
EXAMPLE AUTHOR SUMMARY
Whittles LK, White PJ, Didelot X (2017) Estimating the fitness cost and benefit of cefixime resistance in Neisseria gonorrhoeae to inform prescription policy: A modelling study. PLoS Med 14(10): e1002416. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002416
If you chose to post your manuscript to a preprint server before or during submission to PLOS, you can update or revise your preprint up until the point of acceptance for publication. Please consult the preprint server for specific instructions.