diff --git a/scipost/templates/scipost/EdCol_by-laws.html b/scipost/templates/scipost/EdCol_by-laws.html
index 0f05891ca009b26865f77e3bc7bfc752e90c61e4..1ab29358793cef6878d4c9fa75a4becd222e0bfa 100644
--- a/scipost/templates/scipost/EdCol_by-laws.html
+++ b/scipost/templates/scipost/EdCol_by-laws.html
@@ -419,7 +419,7 @@
 		      is made visible to all non-conflicted Fellows.
 		    </p>
 		    <p>
-		      A number of Fellows (depending on the Journal) is selected by Editorial Administration and specifically given voting rights on the recommendation. This selection is made to ensure sufficient expertise, enforce checks on impartiality and avoid conflicts of interest. Other qualified Fellows can claim voting rights on the recommendation if they so wish, by contacting Editorial Administration (in the interest of workflow control, not all Fellows are expected to vote on all recommendations, but rather only on the ones they are given voting rights on).
+		      A number of Fellows (depending on the Journal) is selected by Editorial Administration and specifically given voting rights on the recommendation. This selection is made to ensure sufficient expertise, enforce checks on impartiality and avoid conflicts of interest. Other qualified Fellows can claim voting rights on the recommendation if they so wish, by contacting Editorial Administration.
 		    </p>
 		    <p>
 		      The voting Fellows cast their opinion on the recommendation. They can:
@@ -430,8 +430,9 @@
 		      </ul>
 		    </p>
 		    <p>
-		      The result of the vote is determined by strict majority of non-abstaining
-		      Fellows.
+		      The result of the vote is determined by strict majority of
+		      non-abstaining Fellows, the acceptance quorum (minimal number of
+		      agreeing Fellows) depending on the Journal (e.g. 4 for flagship, 3 for Core).
 		    </p>
 		    <p>
 		      When agreeing with a recommendation for publication, voting Fellows
@@ -451,7 +452,10 @@
 		      which recommendation(s) they would support; they can alternately
 		      specify that they think previous referees should be reconsulted, or that
 		      new referees should be found (this can happen in particular when a voting
-		      Fellow disagrees with a direct recommendation).
+		      Fellow disagrees with a direct recommendation). These alternative
+		      recommendations are taken into account to fix the College decision or
+		      by the Editor-in-charge if they with to reformulate the recommendation
+		      (see detailed explanations below).
 		    </p>
 		    <p>
 		      For example, a voting Fellow can disagree with a recommendation to