The email lands at 11 pm: “Major revision”, with two reviewer reports running to nearly four pages. The natural reaction is to skim, see nothing but criticism and lose a night’s sleep. Yet among editors, a major revision is a good outcome: the editor has decided the paper is promising enough to justify reviewers’ time and wants to see it improved. Most papers in serious journals have been through at least one round of revision.
The challenge is not the number of comments but how you read them. Misread the editor’s tone and you may polish minor points while missing the one thing they consider a condition of acceptance.
Decision types and what they really mean
| Decision | In practice | What to do |
|---|---|---|
| Accept | Rare in the first round | Check the proofs carefully |
| Minor revision | Very likely accepted if fixed properly | Revise quickly and tightly; avoid adding major new material |
| Major revision | Valuable paper with real problems; usually goes back to reviewers | Plan the revision; extra analysis may be needed |
| Reject and resubmit | Not there yet, but the journal will consider a new version as a fresh submission | Weigh a substantial rework against moving journals |
| Reject | The journal will not reconsider this paper | Use the comments to improve it, then submit elsewhere |
Reading the editor’s tone
The editor’s letter matters more than any single report, because the editor makes the final call. Look for three kinds of signal:
- Points the editor repeats. If the editor restates a reviewer’s comment in their own letter, treat it as a condition of acceptance.
- Directive language. “Must”, “essential”, “particularly important” carry far more weight than “the authors may wish to consider”.
- Guidance on conflicting reviews. Sometimes the editor says whose view to follow. If not, you will need to choose and explain why.
A phrase such as “we would be willing to consider a substantially revised version” often leans towards reject and resubmit, whatever the subject line says. “We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript” is a warmer signal.
The 48-hour rule
Read the letter once, close it, and do not reply or start editing for 48 hours. Reviewer comments are often blunt and occasionally unpleasant, and reading them while stung makes every line feel like a personal attack. Two days later, many comments that seemed devastating turn out to be simple requests for clarification.
Sort every comment into four groups
Split each report into individual comments, number them R1.1, R1.2, R2.1 and so on, then assign each to a group:
- Fix now: genuine errors, missing information, unclear sentences. Usually the majority, and quick.
- Needs new work: extra analyses, robustness checks, additional literature. The most time-consuming; schedule it.
- Disagree with reasons: the reviewer misunderstood, or the suggestion does not fit the design. You still reply with evidence, and usually still revise the text so the next reader does not misunderstand in the same way.
- Out of scope: good ideas that belong in a different study. Acknowledge them in the limitations or future research.
A rule of thumb: if more than one comment in five falls into group 3, reread the manuscript. The writing itself may be what led the reviewer astray.
When reviewers contradict each other
Reviewer 1 wants a shorter literature review; Reviewer 2 wants two more theories added. Do not try to satisfy both by adding and then trimming. Check whether the editor leans one way. If not, choose the option that best serves the research question and explain courteously to the other reviewer that you considered their view. The editor sees both reports and understands the dilemma.
What not to do in a revision
- Make large changes to sections nobody asked about. Reviewers will have to reread everything and may find new problems.
- Add a dozen references just because a reviewer suggested them. If a reviewer pushes several papers from the same group with no clear relevance, cite only what genuinely fits and alert the editor if it looks like coercive citation; COPE has guidance on this.
- Argue aggressively. You may be right, but a combative tone makes it harder for the editor to side with you.
- Miss the deadline without asking for an extension. Deadlines are stated in the letter; if new analysis needs more time, ask early and explain why.
In practice: a revision plan spreadsheet
Create a spreadsheet with these columns:
- Comment ID (R1.3).
- One-line summary of the comment.
- Group (1–4).
- Specific action: rewrite, new analysis, new references, explanation.
- Owner within the author team.
- Internal deadline.
- Location of the change in the revised manuscript (page, line).
- Status: to do, in progress, done, checked.
Tackle group 2 first, because it takes longest and its results may change other sections. Leave group 1 until the text has settled. The “location” column later becomes the backbone of your response to reviewers.
A real-world pattern: a paper receives 27 comments. After triage there are 16 in group 1, 5 in group 2, 4 in group 3 and 2 in group 4. Seeing those numbers, the team realises the real work lies in five additional analyses and schedules three weeks, instead of panicking about “27 problems”.
What to do when the letter arrives: wait 48 hours, then split, number and group every comment. Only start editing the manuscript once the table is complete, and share it with all co-authors so that everyone agrees on the plan first.
Câu hỏi thường gặp
Does major revision mean my paper will be accepted?
It is not a guarantee, but it is a positive sign. Most papers that are revised seriously after a major revision are eventually accepted, sometimes after a further round.
What is the difference between reject and resubmit and major revision?
Reject and resubmit means the new version is treated as a fresh submission and may go to different reviewers. A major revision keeps the same record and usually returns to the original reviewers.
Do I have to do everything the reviewers ask?
No. You can disagree when you have scientific reasons, but you must respond to every point politely and support your position with evidence.
What if two reviewers ask for opposite changes?
Check whether the editor gives guidance. If not, choose the option that best serves your research question and explain your reasoning to both reviewers in the response letter.
How long do I have to submit a revision?
The deadline is usually stated in the decision letter and varies by journal. If additional analysis needs more time, request an extension early and give a concrete reason.
