Make it easy to return incomplete work for clarification

What this means for your practice

Define the submission requirements and a clear return-for-clarification route. Returning work should explain what is missing and who must act next.

A practical conversation with your supplier

Try a fictional submission without one essential attachment. The reviewer should return it with a specific explanation, and the author should know what to do next. Ask whether resubmission remains connected to the same review history. A rejected label alone does not help anyone finish the work.

Plan the first improvement

Agree the minimum supporting information for each type of review, keeping the list proportionate. Requiring everything imaginable slows straightforward work, while vague requirements create repeated returns. Ask reviewers which missing details genuinely stop a decision and use those to improve the submission instructions. A return for clarification should name the missing item and the person expected to provide it. It should also explain whether the reviewer is waiting or whether the work must be submitted again through a defined step.

Keep the discussion connected to the original request so a colleague taking over can see what has already been answered. Use a sample with two rounds of clarification to check that earlier corrections are not lost. When reviewing performance, distinguish unavoidable questions from repeated gaps that clearer instructions could prevent. The aim is to give reviewers enough reliable context and help authors complete the request, rather than make the approval screen reject as many incomplete forms as possible.

How to check the result

Count review delays caused by avoidable incomplete submissions.