brycewang-stanford Revision and Editing (hlr-revision-and-editing)
After acceptance, an HLR piece goes through an intensive, multi-round editing cycle run by student editors — heavier and more iterative than at most journals. There is no single "R&R letter" as in peer review; instead there are successive passes (substantive, technical/line, Bluebook, proofs), each with deadlines. This skill keeps the cycle moving, protects the argument across rounds, and lands the piece in print without late surprises.
When to trigger
- The substantive edit is underway and rounds are stacking up
- You receive markups, queries, or new source-pull requests between rounds
- You disagree with a proposed change and must respond across a round
- Page proofs arrive and need a careful final pass
The edit cycle (round by round)
| Round | Focus | Author's job |
|---|---|---|
| Substantive round(s) | Strengthen the argument; close gaps editors flagged | Revise on the merits; defend with reasons where warranted |
| Technical / line round | Prose, clarity, house style | Approve or push back on specific edits, not en masse |
| Bluebook / cite round | Every footnote conformed and verified | Supply pincites/sources fast; fix unsupportable claims |
| Page proofs | Final typeset, last corrections | Catch errors; make only essential changes |
Working the cycle well
- Resolve substance before style. Settle the argument-level edits early; do not relitigate them once the piece moves to line and Bluebook rounds.
- Track every change across rounds. Edits move footnotes and text; a fix in round one can break an
Id. or a cross-reference in round three. Re-verify short forms after each round (see
hlr-sources-and-bluebook). - Respond comprehensively, not selectively. Address every query in a round; partial responses cause another round and slip the schedule.
- Keep a clean change log. Note what you accepted, what you pushed back on, and why — it prevents re-arguing settled points and helps the next editor.
- Protect the voice and the claim; concede the rest. Defend substance and signature phrasing with reasons; concede style and formatting to keep goodwill and momentum.
- Proof carefully, change minimally. At proofs, fix errors — do not reopen the argument.
Deadlines and momentum
The cycle runs on the journal's production calendar. Responsiveness is the variable you control: fast, complete returns keep the piece on schedule and signal good faith; slow returns stall it and strain the team. Build in time for the source-pull rounds, which are the most labor-intensive for the author.
Checklist
- Substantive edits resolved before line/Bluebook rounds
- Every query in each round answered (no partial returns)
- Short forms / cross-references re-verified after each round of moves
- Source-pull requests answered with exact pincites, fast
- Change log kept (accepted / pushed back / why)
- Argument and voice protected; style conceded
- Page proofs reviewed for errors only
Anti-patterns
- Reopening settled substantive edits during the line or Bluebook round
- Partial responses that trigger extra rounds and slip the calendar
- Leaving dangling Id./supra after footnotes were reordered in a round
- Fighting every line edit and exhausting editor goodwill
- Introducing new argument at page proofs
Output format
【Round】substantive / technical / Bluebook / proofs
【Open queries】count + the hard ones
【Short forms re-verified】after this round's moves? [Y/N]
【Change log】updated (accepted / pushed back / why)? [Y/N]
【Deadline】next return date
【Next】next round → publication (loop hlr-student-editor-review for relationship issues)
Supplementary resources
../../resources/official-source-map.md— HLR editorial process and publication schedule../../resources/external_tools.md— change-tracking and citation-management tools for the cycle