Direct comparison
Major vs. Minor Revision: Key Differences
Major revision vs. minor revision: who re-reviews your response, typical turnaround times, and how your response strategy should differ.
Side-by-side comparison
| Dimension | Minor Revision | Major Revision |
|---|---|---|
| What it signals | Core contribution and methodology are sound; changes are bounded and specific | Substantive issues identified: methodological gaps, missing analyses, or framing problems |
| Who evaluates the response | Usually the editor alone | Usually the original reviewers, on a further review round |
| Typical revision window | Often 2-4 weeks | Often 1-6+ months, depending on scope |
| Typical re-evaluation time | Days to about two weeks, editor-only | Several weeks to a few months, reviewer round included |
| Response letter scope | Brief, targeted, confirms each specific fix | Longer, evidence-based, may include new analyses or data |
| Risk if under-addressed | Editor may request further clarification or escalate to reviewer review | Reviewers may recommend rejection at the second round if concerns are not substantively resolved |
| Relative odds of eventual acceptance | High, if requested changes are made | Favorable but not guaranteed -- genuine second-round evaluation |
Common questions
FAQ
Is a minor revision basically an acceptance?+
Not formally. The editor still needs to see the requested changes made and confirm the response addresses them, but most adequately-addressed minor revisions go on to be accepted.
Does a major revision mean the reviewers were unfavorable?+
Not necessarily. It reflects the scope of additional work needed, not reviewer hostility -- reviewers can be positive about the contribution while identifying substantive gaps.
Who decides whether a revision is major or minor?+
The handling editor, informed by the reviewers' recommendations and comments, which do not always agree with each other.
