“Major revision” is a single phrase covering decisions with very different odds. At one journal it means the paper will almost certainly be published if you do the work. At another it means the editor is undecided and the next round is a genuine coin toss. The words are the same; the base rates are not.
Read the decision letter, not the label
The editor’s own paragraph carries far more information than the category. Specific things to look for:
- “I invite you to submit a revised version” is warmer than “you may resubmit”. An invitation implies the editor wants the paper.
- A deadline suggests a slot is being held. No deadline suggests less commitment.
- “The revised manuscript will be sent to the original reviewers” means the criticisms are considered addressable. “Will be treated as a new submission” means it is not really a revision.
- The editor prioritising among comments is the strongest positive signal in the whole letter. An editor who tells you which comments matter most has formed a view of what the paper needs and expects it to get there.
- Silence from the editor, with only the reviews attached, means you should read the reviews as the decision.
Reading the reviews themselves
The distinction that matters is between comments about execution and comments about premise.
Execution comments are addressable: add an analysis, clarify a procedure, reframe a claim, engage more literature. Even a long list of them is good news, because the reviewer is telling you what the acceptable version looks like.
Premise comments are not addressable by revision: the design cannot answer the question, the sample cannot support the inference, the contribution is not sufficient for this journal. A short review containing one premise objection is a worse outcome than a four-page review of execution comments, even though it looks lighter.
Count the premise objections, not the total comments. One unfixable objection outweighs twenty fixable ones.
When reviewers disagree
Common, and not your problem to resolve alone. Where one reviewer asks for something another explicitly advises against, do not silently pick a side. Say in your response letter that the two comments are in tension, explain which course you took and why, and let the editor adjudicate. Editors expect this and it is part of what they are for.
Judging whether to revise at all
Revising is not free. It typically costs several weeks, and at some journals the acceptance rate after major revision is not high. Reasons to revise:
- The comments are predominantly about execution.
- The editor’s letter is warm or prioritised.
- The requested work is feasible with data or resources you already have.
- The revision would improve the paper wherever it is eventually published.
Reasons to submit elsewhere instead:
- A premise objection you cannot answer with the data you have.
- Requests for new data collection that would take longer than the paper is worth.
- A neutral editor letter attached to two lukewarm reviews.
- A journal whose fit was marginal to begin with.
If you do move on, the reviews remain valuable. Most of the execution comments will apply at the next journal too, and arriving with them already addressed measurably improves your odds.
Minor revision, briefly
Minor revision is close to an acceptance in most editorial cultures. It usually means the editor will decide without sending the paper back out. Treat the comments seriously regardless: papers do get rejected after minor revision, almost always because the author treated the round as a formality.