Andrew Rosenkrantz and Mukesh Harisinghani examined 696 original research submissions to the American Journal of Roentgenology. At the first decision, 0.3% were accepted without revision, 8.5% received a minor revision, and 19.7% received a major revision. Most of the remaining manuscripts were rejected.
Those percentages come from one radiology journal and should not be treated as universal. They illustrate a common situation: after peer review, authors are often asked to revise their paper rather than receiving an immediate acceptance.
The words minor and major describe how much work the journal expects.
SAGE’s editor guidance describes a minor revision as a limited set of changes that could make the manuscript ready for publication. A major revision requires more substantial changes.
IOP Publishing states that a minor revision has “a very good chance” of acceptance, while a major revision has “a chance.”
In both cases, the manuscript is still being considered. The main differences are how much work remains and whether reviewers are likely to see the paper again.
What does a minor revision mean?
A minor revision usually means that the editor believes a limited set of changes could make the manuscript ready for publication.
SAGE gives examples such as clarifying unclear text, adding or removing citations, correcting factual or numerical errors, relabeling a figure, improving an ethics statement, and making small language changes.
PLOS tells its academic editors to use minor revision when a manuscript is nearly ready. After resubmission, the editor can check the requested changes and may make the next decision without asking the reviewers to evaluate the paper again.
IOP typically gives authors one to two weeks to submit a minor revision and says that the revised manuscript is unlikely to return to the reviewers.
Wiley’s author guidance sometimes calls this decision “accept with minor revisions.” That wording can sound final, but the manuscript is not formally accepted until the journal sends you an acceptance decision.
Minor does not mean optional. Authors still need to respond to every required comment.
If a letter labeled minor asks for a new experiment, substantial new analysis, or a major change to the paper’s argument, the work may be larger than the label suggests. Read the editor’s letter and reviewer comments before estimating how much time the revision will require.
What does a major revision mean?
A major revision means that the journal is willing to consider a revised version, but substantial changes are still needed.
SAGE gives examples such as missing methodological information, important problems with the data or analysis, requests for additional analysis, unresolved ethics concerns, and language or figure problems that make the manuscript difficult to understand.
Springer Nature’s description of the editorial process lists acceptance, minor revision, major revision, and rejection as possible decisions after review.
PLOS states that a major revision requires substantial changes and may be sent back to the original reviewers. IOP gives authors four to eight weeks for a major revision and states that the revised article will return to the reviewers.
Wiley uses different wording: “accept after major revisions (conditional acceptance).” This shows why the label alone is not enough. Some journals treat a major revision as a step toward acceptance if the authors complete the requested work. Others may still reject the manuscript if important concerns remain.
IOP states that a manuscript can still be rejected if the reviewers or editors are not satisfied with the revision.
Some publishers use another category between minor and major revision. IOP, for example, uses moderate revision for changes that require more work than a minor revision but less than a major one. IOP generally gives authors two to four weeks for this type of revision and may send the manuscript back to a reviewer.
If your journal uses a term such as moderate revision, follow that journal’s definition rather than assuming it means the same thing everywhere.
| Minor revision | Major revision | |
|---|---|---|
| Amount of work | Limited changes to existing text, tables, citations, figures, or explanations | Substantial rewriting, new analysis, changes to methods, or additional experiments |
| Typical return time at IOP | 1 to 2 weeks | 4 to 8 weeks |
| Who may check the revision | Often the editor; practices vary by journal | Often the original reviewers; practices vary by journal |
| What the decision generally means | The manuscript is close to publication, with limited issues remaining | The manuscript may be publishable, but substantial issues remain |
| Common misunderstanding | Assuming the paper is already accepted | Assuming the paper is effectively rejected or that resubmission guarantees acceptance |
Who chooses the label: the reviewers or the editor?
The editor makes the decision. Reviewers provide recommendations.
COPE’s ethical guidelines for peer reviewers state that a recommendation to accept, revise, or reject should match the concerns raised in the review.
The editor does not have to follow a reviewer’s recommendation.
SAGE notes that a reviewer may recommend major revision while asking for changes the authors cannot reasonably make, such as collecting an entirely new sample or redesigning the study. In those cases, rejection may be more appropriate than asking for a revision.
The opposite can happen too. A reviewer may recommend rejection, while the editor decides that the problems can be addressed through revision.
PLOS notes that reviewers often disagree. The editor decides which comments must be addressed and can tell the authors which requests are essential.
This means that two manuscripts with similar reviewer comments may receive different decisions. One editor may see a request for additional analysis as something that can be addressed through major revision. Another may decide that the underlying problem cannot be fixed.
The reviewer comments help inform the decision. The editor’s letter tells the authors what they need to address.
Does a major revision mean the paper will be accepted?
No. A major revision means that the journal is willing to consider a revised version.
Published data from two radiology journals show that many revision invitations eventually led to acceptance, but those numbers do not apply to every journal or field.
In the American Journal of Roentgenology study, 98.3% of manuscripts that received a minor revision at the first decision were eventually accepted, compared with 84.7% of those that received a major revision.
At the first resubmission, 91.5% to 94.7% of manuscripts returning after minor revision were accepted. For major revisions, 40.0% to 55.2% were accepted at that stage. Many major revisions required another round.
Authors resubmitted 99.0% of manuscripts that received minor revision and 97.3% of those that received major revision. The average time to the first resubmission was 21 days after a minor decision and 74 days after a major decision.
Alvin, Toote, and Ross reported a similar pattern at the American Journal of Neuroradiology. Across five years and 7,328 submissions, the first decisions were 74.8% reject, 14.5% major revision, 7% minor revision, and 3.6% accept. Nearly 99% of manuscripts that received either a minor or major revision at the first decision were eventually accepted.
These results come from two radiology journals with their own review practices. They are not general acceptance rates.
A journal can still reject a major revision if the requested changes are incomplete, new analyses do not resolve the concerns, or required comments remain unanswered.
Treat a major revision as another opportunity to improve and resubmit the paper, not as a delayed acceptance.
What happens after you resubmit?
The next step depends on the journal and how much work is completed.
After a major revision, the manuscript often returns to the original reviewers. After a minor revision, the editor may check the changes without another round of external review.
SAGE advises editors to ask reviewers to look again when authors have made substantial changes or reanalyzed the data. Limited changes can often be checked by the editor.
If the original reviewers are unavailable, the editor may invite someone new. A new reviewer may identify issues that were not raised in the first round.
Journals generally expect a clear response to each reviewer comment.
IOP asks authors to list their changes and respond politely to every referee comment, including comments they disagree with. The response should show where each change appears in the revised manuscript.
Elsevier’s guidance recommends a similar approach: include the comment, explain what you changed, include the revised text when useful, and provide page and line numbers.
A response such as “Fixed in the manuscript” is too vague because the editor or reviewer then has to search for the change.
PLOS asks editors to aim for no more than two revision rounds before making a final decision. SAGE recommends no more than three. More rounds can occur, but authors should not assume that revision will continue indefinitely.
If a later decision asks for work that you cannot complete, contact the journal and explain the problem.
Revision deadlines also vary by journal and by the amount of work requested. IOP gives shorter periods for minor revisions than for major ones and advises authors to contact the journal if they need more time.
If you cannot meet the deadline, ask whether an extension is possible rather than assuming that a late resubmission will be accepted.
Our post on how long peer review takes covers the wider review timeline.
How do you tell what your decision letter is actually asking for?
Read the editor’s decision letter together with the reviewer comments.
The editor’s letter is important because it may explain which reviewer requests are required and which are optional.
If the editor says that Reviewer 2’s analysis request must be addressed but Reviewer 1’s request for a new cohort is optional, follow that instruction.
Then group each comment by the work it requires.
Clarify. The necessary information already exists, but the manuscript needs clearer text. Examples include adding a definition, citation, figure label, explanation, or limitation.
Reanalyze. The data already exist, but the analysis needs to change. Examples include a sensitivity analysis, a different model, a missing baseline, or a correction for multiple comparisons.
Collect new data. The reviewer asks for a new experiment, sample, instrument, or follow-up. Check whether the request is possible within the revision period and whether the editor considers it required.
Cannot complete. The request depends on something you cannot reasonably change, such as an irreversible design choice, unavailable data, or an experiment outside the scope of the study. Explain the limitation and describe any alternative action you took.
If an essential request cannot be completed, contact the editor before spending substantial time on the revision.
SAGE advises editors to invite revision when the main concerns can reasonably be addressed. If a required concern cannot be resolved, the editor may decide that the manuscript cannot proceed.
It can help to prepare the response letter before editing the manuscript. Copy each comment, record what needs to change, and note where the change will appear. This makes it easier to track every request.
Academic review tools, including Fukurō, can help check whether revisions remain consistent across sections of a manuscript. They cannot determine whether a journal will accept the paper or whether a requested experiment is practical for a particular research project.
How is a major revision different from reject and resubmit?
A major revision normally keeps the manuscript in the same submission process.
A reject and resubmit decision ends the current submission but allows the authors to submit a substantially revised version as a new manuscript.
IOP uses the wording “rejected but may resubmit” when the requested changes are too large to handle as a revision of the existing submission. A new submission receives a new manuscript number and may return to some of the same reviewers.
Other journals use different terms.
For example, Sociological Methods & Research uses decisions such as reject, revise and resubmit, and conditional accept instead of minor and major revision.
In that system, revise and resubmit is broadly similar to major revision, while conditional acceptance is closer to minor revision.
Springer Nature’s editor guide notes that terminology varies. The important question is whether the journal is accepting the paper, asking for a revision within the same submission, or rejecting the current submission.
Read the instructions in the decision letter rather than relying on the label alone.
A desk rejection is different. The editor rejects the manuscript before sending it for external review.
An outright rejection after review is still a rejection, even if some reviewer comments seem easy to address. Wiley advises authors to respect an outright rejection and use the reviewer comments when preparing the paper for another journal unless there are grounds for an appeal.
Positive reviewer comments do not change the editor’s rejection decision.
The label gives you a general idea of the amount of work expected and whether another review is likely. The decision letter tells you what you need to do.
A complete revision should address every required comment, explain any disagreement, and show where the manuscript changed.
References and useful policies
- SAGE. Making decisions.
- PLOS. Assessing reviews and making decisions.
- IOP Publishing. Getting a first decision on your article.
- IOP Publishing. Writing and submitting your revised article.
- Springer Nature Support. Editorial process after submission.
- Wiley Author Services. Peer review.
- Rosenkrantz AB, Harisinghani M. Metrics for original research articles in the AJR: from first submission to final publication. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2015;204(6):1152-1156.
- Alvin MD, Toote C, Ross JS. Insights into the AJNR review process. AJNR. American Journal of Neuroradiology. 2021;42(6):996-997.
- Elsevier. How to respond to reviewer comments: the CALM way.
- COPE Council. Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers.
- IOP Publishing. Introductory guide for authors.
- Springer Nature. Information guide for editors.
- Sociological Methods & Research. Manuscript submission guidelines.