Definition · Plain-language
Major Revisions
Major revisions is a peer review decision indicating that a manuscript requires substantial structural, methodological, or analytical changes before it can be considered for publication. Authors must conduct additional work, reanalyse data, or significantly rewrite sections to satisfy the reviewers' concerns.
The step most authors miss
Doing CRediT right? Don’t stop at the statement.
A CRediT statement credits you inside one paper. The recognition CRediT was built for happens when those roles are tied to you, persistently. Sign in with your ORCID — free — and claim your CRediT contributions on casrai.org, the home of the standard. They become a verified, portable part of your identity, not a line that disappears into one PDF.
Free: claim your contributions, then export a journal-ready CRediT statement, schema.org structured data, JATS XML, CSV or BibTeX — and preview your public profile. A membership publishes that profile publicly and verifies the journals you serve.
Common Triggers for Major Revisions
Editors and peer reviewers request major revisions when the core contribution of the study is significant but its execution has serious gaps. Common triggers include methodological weaknesses, such as insufficient sample sizes or a lack of appropriate control groups. Reviewers may also identify statistical errors, such as using incorrect tests or failing to report confidence intervals, which undermine the reliability of the findings. These gaps must be resolved to protect scientific integrity. Another frequent cause is overreaching conclusions. Authors often extrapolate their results beyond what their data support, prompting reviewers to demand a more cautious, balanced discussion. Additionally, a poorly structured manuscript that lacks clarity, has missing literature, or fails to define its key theoretical frameworks can prompt a request for major revisions to ensure the paper meets scholarly standards. Authors must address these points systematically to satisfy the editorial board. Ultimately, a request for major revisions is a sign that the manuscript requires substantial scientific refinement. By addressing these core flaws, authors can significantly improve the rigour and impact of their work, ensuring it meets the publication standards of the target journal. Identifying these triggers early allows authors to proactively adjust their submission strategy, ensuring that their work is evaluated on its scientific merits rather than technical non-compliance. These technical screening policies are strictly enforced to maintain the journal's academic standing, indexing, and overall reputation within the wider scientific community.
A Systematic Approach to Addressing Feedback
Tackling major revisions requires a structured, step-by-step workflow. The first step is to deconstruct the editorial letter and reviewer reports. Authors should extract every comment and group them by theme, such as methodology, analysis, and writing. This helps the research team prioritise the tasks, focusing first on the most demanding requests, such as conducting new experiments or gathering additional data. Organising tasks early prevents administrative delays. Once the additional research and analysis are complete, authors should update the manuscript text. It is helpful to use track changes or highlight new text to show where revisions have occurred. Finally, authors must draft a detailed response letter. In this document, they should quote each comment and explain precisely how the manuscript was amended to address the concern, referencing specific page and line numbers in the final version. This systematic approach ensures that no comments are missed, which is a common cause of rejection during the second round of review. Clear, detailed responses build trust with the reviewers, showing that the authors are committed to scientific excellence. Implementing these systematic strategies requires careful planning and attention to detail, but it ultimately saves time and resources for the entire research team during submission. Conducting a thorough pre-submission review is a critical step that significantly reduces the likelihood of administrative delays or immediate rejection by the editor. Implementing these systematic strategies requires careful planning and attention to detail, but it ultimately saves time and resources for the entire research team during submission.
Navigating Unfeasible Reviewer Requests
In some cases, reviewers may request changes that are unfeasible due to time constraints, financial limits, or ethical restrictions. For example, a reviewer might ask for a clinical trial to be replicated with a larger cohort, which is impossible within a 90-day revision window. When this occurs, authors should not ignore the comment; instead, they must provide a rational, polite, and well-supported explanation. Ignoring requests is a common path to rejection. Authors can argue that the requested work is outside the scope of the present study. They should explain why the existing data and analyses are sufficient to support their conclusions, and propose adding the reviewer's point as a limitation in the discussion section. This shows respect for the reviewer's expertise while establishing clear, reasonable boundaries for the study. Editorial boards often accept logical, well-supported arguments. It is also helpful to suggest alternative, more feasible tests that address the reviewer's underlying concern. This constructive approach demonstrates that the authors are willing to work with the reviewers to improve the paper's validity, even if the exact request cannot be met. Engaging constructively with this feedback is a vital skill in academic writing, helping to refine the study's conclusions and clarify its contribution to the field. Maintaining a polite and professional tone in the response letter is essential for facilitating a constructive scholarly dialogue with the peer reviewers.
The Second Round of Peer Review and Outcomes
Upon resubmission, the manuscript and response letter are sent back to the original reviewers. The referees will evaluate whether the changes satisfy their initial concerns. This second round of review is rigorous, as reviewers will compare the original and revised versions. They will assess whether the authors have addressed all points or merely made superficial modifications. Complete transparency is required during this evaluation. Based on the reviewers' feedback, the editor will make a subsequent decision. If the revisions are successful, the paper may be accepted or given a minor revisions decision. However, if the authors failed to address critical flaws, ignored comments without justification, or introduced new errors during the revision process, the manuscript will be rejected. This makes it crucial to address every point with scientific rigour. Furthermore, the second round of review can sometimes involve new reviewers if the original ones are unavailable. This makes it essential that the revised manuscript stands on its own, with all key changes integrated smoothly into the main text to prevent confusion. This iterative review process ensures that only high-quality, scientifically sound research is published, preserving the journal's reputation and indexation status. The final decision by the handling editor is based on a careful synthesis of reviewer opinions, ensuring that the process remains fair, objective, and rigorous. This iterative review process ensures that only high-quality, scientifically sound research is published, preserving the journal's reputation and indexation status.
Key facts
At a glance
- Major revisions indicate that the manuscript has fundamental issues that must be resolved.
- Addressing major revisions often requires generating new data or performing new analyses.
- The revised manuscript will undergo another round of external peer review by original referees.
- Journals typically grant a longer timeframe (e.g. 60 to 90 days) for major revisions.
- Failure to address critical flaws adequately will lead to the rejection of the paper.
Common misconceptions
What people often get wrong
Often heard: A request for major revisions means the paper will eventually be accepted.
Actually: Acceptance remains conditional on how successfully the author addresses the critiques; a poor or superficial revision will lead to rejection. Authors must treat major revisions with the highest level of detail. The paper is still under review.
Often heard: If you cannot perform the requested new experiments, you must withdraw the paper.
Actually: If a request is outside the study's scope, authors can explain this limitation logically in their response, justifying why the current data are sufficient. They can add limitations to the discussion. This is a common and accepted practice.
Often heard: Major revisions mean you should completely start your research from scratch.
Actually: It means your existing framework has potential, but key elements of the execution, analysis, or interpretation need to be corrected or expanded. Authors should focus on enhancing the existing draft. Starting from scratch is unnecessary.
