Major Revision vs. Minor Revision: Key Differences

Major Revision vs. Minor Revision in Peer Review: Differences, Examples, and What Happens Next

Receiving a revision decision from an academic journal can be both encouraging and stressful. After weeks or months of peer review, authors may receive an editorial letter requesting either major or minor revisions.

But what is the difference between major revision vs. minor revision, and what does each decision mean for your manuscript's chances of publication?

A minor revision generally means that the manuscript requires limited improvements, such as clearer explanations, corrected figures, or minor reporting changes. A major revision means that substantial concerns must be addressed before the editor can determine whether the manuscript is suitable for publication.

Both decisions indicate that the journal is allowing further consideration of the paper. However, neither guarantees final acceptance unless the editor explicitly provides conditional acceptance under the journal's policies.

Understanding these decisions can help researchers respond professionally, prioritize reviewer comments, prepare revised manuscripts, and avoid mistakes that may affect subsequent editorial evaluations.

This guide explains the key differences, practical examples, revision procedures, acceptance considerations, and how to write an effective response to reviewers.

What Is Major Revision in Peer Review?

A major revision is an editorial decision indicating that a research manuscript requires substantial changes before the journal can reconsider it for publication.

The editor may identify important concerns involving the research methodology, statistical analysis, theoretical contribution, interpretation of findings, or reporting completeness.

A major revision decision commonly means that the study has potential value, but the manuscript does not yet meet all the journal's publication requirements.

Examples of major revisions may include:

• Justifying or correcting important methodological decisions.
• Conducting additional analyses supported by existing data.
• Clarifying sampling procedures or measurement validity.
• Addressing substantial inconsistencies in reported results.
• Reorganizing the theoretical framework or discussion.
• Revising conclusions that are not adequately supported by evidence.
• Performing additional essential experiments where justified and feasible.

According to Wiley's reviewer guidance, major revisions may involve additional key experiments or significant changes addressing methodological, theoretical, or other scholarly concerns.

After resubmission, the editor may invite the original reviewers to examine the revised manuscript.

Importantly, major revision does not automatically mean that the article will eventually be accepted.

What Is Minor Revision in Peer Review?

A minor revision is an editorial decision requesting relatively limited changes to a manuscript that is otherwise close to meeting the journal's publication standards.

Minor revisions generally do not require fundamental changes to the research design or central findings.

Instead, they may involve improving the presentation, correcting inconsistencies, or clarifying specific aspects of the paper.

Examples include:

• Correcting typographical and grammatical errors.
• Improving figure labels or table formatting.
• Defining abbreviations and technical terms.
• Clarifying brief sections of the methodology.
• Adding directly relevant references.
• Revising sentences that could be misinterpreted.
• Correcting minor reporting inconsistencies.

Minor changes can still be scientifically important.

For example, clarifying the measurement units in a figure may prevent readers from misunderstanding the reported results.

Wiley explains that minor revisions are typically assessed by the handling editor, although journals may apply different procedures.

A minor revision decision is generally encouraging, but authors should not assume acceptance until the journal formally confirms it.

Major Revision vs. Minor Revision: Key Differences

The main difference concerns the significance and scope of the requested changes.

The distinction is not identical across all journals.

An issue considered major by one editor might be classified differently by another publication.

Always prioritize the specific instructions in the decision letter.

Is Major Revision a Good Sign?

A major revision decision can be a positive development because the journal has invited the authors to improve their manuscript rather than issuing an immediate final rejection.

It indicates that the editor considers the work potentially suitable for further evaluation if the identified concerns can be addressed.

However, the decision also signals that important problems remain unresolved.

For example, a manuscript may present a relevant research question but lack adequate justification for its statistical analysis.

If the authors address the concern convincingly, the paper may progress toward acceptance.

If the revised analysis reveals that the central conclusions are unsupported, the editor may decide that publication is not appropriate.

Therefore, major revision is best interpreted as an opportunity for reconsideration, not a promise of publication.

Does Minor Revision Mean Acceptance?

Minor revision often indicates that the manuscript is approaching a publishable standard.

However, its precise meaning depends on the journal's editorial terminology.

Some publishers distinguish between a request for minor revision and a conditional acceptance requiring minor corrections.

In the first situation, acceptance has not yet been finalized.

In the second, the journal may have communicated an intention to accept once specified conditions are met.

For example, an Elsevier Digital Commons workflow describes an editorial category of acceptance with minor revisions, where publication assumes the author completes the requested corrections.

Other editorial systems may use the label "Minor Revision" without making any commitment to acceptance.

Authors should read the wording of the actual decision letter instead of relying only on the status label shown in the submission system.

Major Revision Examples for Research Papers

Major revisions generally concern issues that affect scientific interpretation, methodological soundness, or the research contribution.

Example 1: Inadequate Research Methodology

Reviewer comment:

"The manuscript does not adequately explain the participant recruitment process. Please clarify the sampling method, eligibility criteria, and potential selection bias."

Why this is major:

Insufficient information about sampling may prevent reviewers from evaluating the reliability and generalizability of the findings.

Expected author response:

The authors should expand the methodology, provide the available sampling information, and acknowledge limitations where necessary.

Example 2: Statistical Analysis Concerns

Reviewer comment:

"The statistical model does not appear to account for several relevant confounding variables. Please justify the analytical approach and consider whether additional sensitivity analyses are necessary."

Why this is major:

The concern may affect confidence in the reported relationships and conclusions.

Expected author response:

The authors should explain the model, provide justified additional analyses when possible, and revise interpretations if needed.

Example 3: Unsupported Conclusions

Reviewer comment:

"The manuscript uses causal language despite employing an observational research design. Please distinguish association from causation throughout the discussion and conclusion."

Why this is major:

The study's principal interpretation may overstate what the evidence can demonstrate.

Expected author response:

The authors should revise causal claims and describe the limitations of the study design.

Example 4: Insufficient Experimental Validation

Reviewer comment:

"The proposed method is compared with only one baseline approach. Please clarify the basis for this comparison and provide additional validation where necessary to support the claimed performance improvement."

Why this is major:

Without sufficient comparison or validation, the claimed contribution may not be adequately established.

The appropriate response depends on the available evidence and the study's original objectives.

Minor Revision Examples for Research Papers

Minor revision comments typically address more limited improvements.

Example 1: Figure Clarity

"The labels in Figure 2 are difficult to read. Please increase their size and clarify the units on both axes."

Example 2: Abbreviation Consistency

"Please define the abbreviation at its first occurrence and use the same terminology throughout the manuscript."

Example 3: Reference Correction

"The citation supporting the final paragraph of the introduction appears incomplete. Please verify the reference and correct the bibliographic details."

Example 4: Reporting Clarification

"Please clarify whether the percentages reported in Table 3 are calculated using the total sample or the number of valid responses."

These examples illustrate why minor revisions can be important even when they do not fundamentally change the research.

What Happens After a Major Revision Decision?

After receiving a major revision decision, authors must carefully address the editor's requirements and reviewer comments.

Step 1: Read the Decision Letter

Begin by identifying the revision deadline, mandatory editorial instructions, and reviewer concerns.

Read the comments more than once before making changes.

Separate fundamental scientific issues from presentation corrections.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Reviewer Comment

Determine which concerns can be resolved through clarification, additional analysis, manuscript revision, or acknowledgment of limitations.

Some requests may be difficult to implement or inappropriate for the research design.

When necessary, explain your reasoning respectfully rather than ignoring the comment.

Step 3: Revise the Manuscript

Address the most important methodological and analytical concerns first.

Then revise the discussion, conclusions, tables, figures, and references as required.

Ensure that changes remain consistent throughout the manuscript.

Step 4: Prepare a Point-by-Point Response

Create a separate document explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

Include the original comment, your response, and the location of the relevant manuscript changes.

Step 5: Submit the Revised Files

Follow the journal's instructions for uploading the updated manuscript, response letter, and any supplementary material.

Some journals require both clean and tracked-changes versions.

Step 6: Await Editorial Reassessment

The editor examines the revised submission.

Significant revisions are often returned to the original reviewers.

The reviewers may recommend acceptance, further revision, or rejection, depending on whether their concerns were adequately resolved.

What Happens After Minor Revision?

Minor revisions usually follow a simpler process.

The authors correct the identified issues, prepare a response document, and submit the revised manuscript.

For example, the editor may request improved figures, consistent terminology, and clarification of a paragraph in the results section.

The revised paper may be evaluated directly by the editor without another complete external review.

Wiley notes that minor changes are typically assessed by editors, while substantial revisions more commonly return to reviewers.

Nevertheless, the editor may request additional evaluation if questions remain.

Authors should respond carefully even when the requested corrections seem straightforward.

How to Write a Response to Reviewers

A professional response letter is essential because it demonstrates how the revised manuscript addresses editorial and reviewer concerns.

The most effective approach is a point-by-point format.

For each comment, include the reviewer statement and your detailed response.

Example: Major Revision Response

Reviewer Comment 1:

"The authors should clarify how the sample size was determined and discuss its implications for the study."

Author Response:

"Thank you for this important observation. We have expanded the methodology to explain the sample size determination procedure. We have also added a paragraph to the limitations section discussing the precision and generalizability of the findings. These changes appear in the revised Methods and Discussion sections."

Example: Minor Revision Response

Reviewer Comment 2:

"The abbreviation should be defined when first introduced."

Author Response:

"Thank you for the suggestion. We have defined the abbreviation at its first occurrence in the introduction and checked its use throughout the manuscript."

Avoid stating that you have made changes that are not actually present in the revised file.

Where practical, provide page and line references to help reviewers verify the modifications.

Sample Response Letter for a Revised Manuscript

Subject: Revised Manuscript Submission — [Manuscript ID]

Dear Editor,

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript entitled "[Manuscript Title]," submitted under manuscript ID [ID].

We appreciate the constructive comments provided by the editor and reviewers.

We have carefully considered the feedback and revised the manuscript accordingly.

The main changes include clarification of the research methodology, improvements to the analysis and interpretation, and revisions to the discussion and presentation.

A detailed point-by-point response is included in the accompanying document.

We have also identified the corresponding changes in the revised manuscript according to the journal's submission instructions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, [Corresponding Author Name]

The letter should be adapted to the actual revisions completed rather than copied without modification.

Can You Disagree With Reviewer Comments?

Yes. Authors may respectfully disagree with reviewer recommendations when they have a sound scientific justification.

Peer review is intended to improve research through critical discussion, not require unquestioning acceptance of every suggestion.

For example, a reviewer may request a statistical method that is unsuitable for the study design.

The authors can explain why the method is inappropriate and cite relevant methodological guidance.

A professional disagreement should identify the concern, explain the reasoning, and indicate whether the manuscript has been clarified to prevent misunderstanding.

Avoid dismissive or confrontational wording.

When two reviewer requests conflict, explain the issue to the editor and propose a reasonable solution.

Can a Paper Be Rejected After Major Revision?

Yes. A manuscript can be rejected after a major revision.

This may occur when authors do not adequately address important methodological concerns or when the revised manuscript still fails to meet the journal's publication standards.

For example, additional analysis may reveal that the original conclusions are not supported by the evidence.

A revised manuscript may also introduce new problems requiring editorial consideration.

Major revision means the journal is willing to reconsider the work, not that the editorial outcome is predetermined.

Authors should therefore treat the revision as an important scientific assessment rather than a routine administrative step.

Can a Paper Be Rejected After Minor Revision?

Yes, although the interpretation depends on the actual decision wording.

If the manuscript has received only a minor revision request, the editor may still decide against publication if essential changes are not completed or significant new problems emerge.

However, an explicit conditional acceptance may have different implications under the journal's policies.

For this reason, authors should distinguish between:

• A manuscript invited for minor revision.
• A manuscript conditionally accepted subject to corrections.
• A manuscript formally accepted for publication.

The decision letter is more authoritative than assumptions about the status label.

How Long Does Major Revision vs. Minor Revision Take?

Revision timelines vary by journal, discipline, and the scope of the requested changes.

A minor revision may require only limited editing, while a major revision may involve several analyses, extensive rewriting, or additional research.

After resubmission, the editor may assess minor changes directly.

Major revisions more frequently undergo another round of external review.

Consequently, major revision usually requires more author effort and may involve a longer reassessment period.

However, there is no universal number of days that applies to every manuscript.

Authors should follow the revision deadlines stated in their decision letters and contact the editorial office if additional time is necessary.

Common Mistakes Authors Make During Revision

Even promising manuscripts may encounter difficulties when authors do not manage the revision process carefully.

Common mistakes include:

• Ignoring difficult reviewer comments.
• Responding defensively instead of explaining scientific reasoning.
• Making changes without documenting them.
• Providing vague responses such as "Corrected" without further explanation.
• Adding unnecessary analyses that are unrelated to the research question.
• Revising one section while leaving contradictory statements elsewhere.
• Missing revision deadlines without contacting the editor.
• Assuming that major or minor revision guarantees acceptance.

A careful, organized response can help the editor and reviewers understand the improvements made.

How to Improve Your Chances After Major Revision

No revision strategy can guarantee publication, but several practices can strengthen a resubmission.

First, identify which reviewer concerns affect the scientific validity of the manuscript.

Address these issues before focusing on language and formatting.

Second, provide a clear response to every substantive comment.

Third, check whether any new analyses change the interpretation of the findings.

Fourth, ensure that revisions are consistent across the abstract, results, discussion, tables, and conclusions.

Finally, maintain professional communication with the editor.

If a requested experiment or analysis cannot be completed, explain the reason and provide an appropriate alternative or limitation statement.

The goal is to demonstrate that the revised manuscript meets the journal's scientific standards, not simply to satisfy a checklist.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main difference between major and minor revision?

Major revision involves substantial changes affecting research methods, analysis, interpretation, or scholarly contribution. Minor revision generally involves limited clarifications, presentation improvements, or correctable reporting issues.

Does major revision mean the paper will be accepted?

No. Major revision means the editor has invited a revised submission for further consideration. Acceptance depends on whether the concerns are adequately addressed.

Is minor revision a good sign?

Generally, yes. It often indicates that the remaining concerns are limited, but acceptance is not guaranteed unless the editor explicitly communicates conditional acceptance.

Can major revision become minor revision?

Yes. After authors address substantial concerns, an editor may request a further round of smaller corrections before final acceptance.

Can reviewers reject a paper after major revision?

Reviewers may recommend rejection following reassessment. The editor makes the final publication decision.

Do minor revisions go back to reviewers?

Sometimes, but minor revisions are often assessed directly by the handling editor. The procedure depends on journal policy and the nature of the changes.

What should I include in a response to reviewers?

Include each reviewer comment, a respectful point-by-point response, the changes made, and the location of those changes in the revised manuscript.

Is major revision the same as reject and resubmit?

No. Major revision generally keeps the manuscript within the journal's ongoing evaluation process. Reject and resubmit may end the current submission and require a new submission, depending on the journal's policy.

Conclusion

Understanding major revision vs. minor revision helps academic authors interpret editorial decisions and respond appropriately to peer-review feedback.

Major revision usually requires substantial changes involving scientific methods, analysis, or interpretation. Minor revision generally involves smaller corrections and clarifications.

Both decisions can be opportunities to strengthen a manuscript, but neither should automatically be treated as final acceptance.

A successful revision process requires careful attention to reviewer concerns, scientifically justified modifications, and a clear point-by-point response.

By approaching revisions systematically and following the journal's instructions, researchers can improve their manuscripts and support a more efficient editorial reassessment.