Major vs Minor Revision: What It Actually Means for Your Paper

You got the decision email. It says "major revision" or "minor revision." What does that actually mean?

The short answer

Minor revision: The editor and reviewers think your paper is essentially acceptable. They want you to fix specific, bounded problems: clarify a paragraph, add a reference, tone down a claim, fix a figure label. You're probably not going back to external review. The editor will check your changes and make a decision.

Major revision: The editor thinks the paper has potential but has substantial issues that need to be addressed. New analyses might be needed. A section might need to be rewritten. You might need additional data. The revised paper will almost certainly go back to the original reviewers.

That's it. But people get these wrong in both directions.

What major revision does NOT mean

It doesn't mean your paper is doomed. At most journals, major revision is the most common positive outcome. If the editor wanted to reject you, they would have. Major revision means they see enough merit to invest more time in your paper.

It doesn't mean you need to do everything the reviewers asked. Reviewers suggest. Editors decide. If Reviewer 2 asks for an experiment that would take six months and the editor's letter doesn't specifically endorse it, you have room to push back. Explain why the experiment isn't feasible, offer an alternative analysis, and acknowledge the limitation.

It doesn't mean the next round will also be major. Most papers that get major revision and respond well are accepted after one round of revision, sometimes with minor changes, sometimes outright. The key word is "respond well."

What minor revision does NOT mean

It doesn't mean you can be careless. I've seen papers go from minor revision to rejection because the authors phoned in their response. They ignored comments they thought were trivial, didn't fix things they said they fixed, or introduced new errors in the revision. Minor revision is not a guarantee. It's a strong signal that you're close, but you still have to get across the line.

It doesn't mean every change is small. Sometimes a "minor" revision includes a comment like "please clarify the statistical approach in Section 3" that actually requires rethinking your entire analysis. Read carefully. A comment framed as minor can contain a major substantive concern.

How to read between the lines

The editor's decision letter matters more than the reviewer reports. Here's what to look for:

"We would be happy to consider a revised version" - Good sign. They want to publish this.

"The reviewers have raised concerns that must be addressed" - Neutral. Standard language. Focus on what the concerns actually are.

"The reviewers had divergent opinions" - One reviewer liked it, one didn't. Your job is to address the skeptic's concerns without undermining what the supporter liked.

"Please pay particular attention to Reviewer 2's comments on methodology" - The editor is telling you exactly what matters. This is a gift. Focus there first.

"We can't make a final decision until these issues are resolved" - They're on the fence. Your response needs to be thorough and convincing.

The revision timeline

Most journals give you a deadline:

• Minor revision: 2-4 weeks
• Major revision: 60-90 days, sometimes longer

If you need more time, ask early. Editors almost always grant extensions. What they don't like is getting an extension request the day before the deadline.

Don't rush to submit the revision. If you got major revision with a 90-day window, use enough of it to do the work properly. Submitting in three days signals either that you didn't take the comments seriously or that you had this work ready and held it back.

What happens after your revision

After minor revision: Usually the editor reviews your changes without sending back to reviewers. Decision in 1-3 weeks.

After major revision: Almost always goes back to the original reviewers. They read your response letter, check your changes, and submit new reports. This takes another 3-6 weeks typically. Some journals like Nature Communications have expedited revision processes for certain types of changes.

The possible outcomes:

1. Accept - You're done.
2. Accept with minor changes - Small fixes, no more review.
3. Another round of major revision - Rare, but it happens. Usually means you didn't fully address something.
4. Reject - Also rare after revision, but possible if the revisions revealed new problems or if you didn't address the core concerns.

The most common mistake

The biggest mistake I see: spending all your time on the easy comments and not enough on the hard ones.

It feels productive to knock out 15 minor corrections in an hour. But if Reviewer 1's Comment #3 about your statistical model is the one the editor cares about, that's where 60% of your effort should go. The minor fixes take care of themselves. The substantive responses determine the outcome.

Related reading

• How to Respond to Reviewer Comments (Without Losing Your Mind) - the tactical guide to writing your response letter
• Desk Rejected? Here's Why - what it means if you didn't even get to the revision stage

Got a revision decision and not sure how to prioritize? Our reviewers can review your response letter before you submit it. We'll tell you whether you've addressed the hard comments convincingly enough. Get in touch.

Journal-specific patterns

Revision timelines and expectations vary by journal. Some patterns worth knowing:

Nature Communications: Major revisions typically require new experiments or analyses. Reviewers are specific. Expect 2-3 months to do the work; the journal gives you up to 6 months. Minor revisions are rare: most "revise" decisions at Nature Communications are substantive.

Cell Reports: Major revisions almost always require additional mechanistic data: validation in a second system, rescue experiments, or extended timepoints. Minor revisions are genuine minor revisions: text changes, additional statistics, clarifications.

PLOS ONE: Since PLOS ONE evaluates on soundness rather than significance, revision requests focus on methodology. Major revisions often ask for better controls or statistical reanalysis. Minor revisions are common and usually resolved in 2-4 weeks.

eLife: Uses "major" and "minor" revision but the consulted review model means first revisions are almost always major. eLife revision requests can be long and specific. The journal gives 2 months for major revisions.

NEJM and JAMA: Revision requests at clinical journals focus on statistical reporting, subgroup analysis, and conclusions that don't overreach. Major revisions at NEJM often request independent statistical review.

When reviewers disagree

One reviewer asks for major new experiments. Another says the paper is nearly ready for publication. This is common and harder to work through than uniform feedback.

The right approach: treat disagreeing reviewers as providing information about different aspects of your paper. Don't cherry-pick the favorable review. Address the substantive concerns from the critical reviewer as completely as you can, while documenting your response to the favorable reviewer's points too.

In your response letter, acknowledge the discrepancy explicitly: "We note that Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 3 had different assessments of [X]. We have addressed Reviewer 1's concerns by [specific action] and believe this resolves the underlying methodological question."

Editors mediate reviewer disagreements. A complete response to all reviewers, even disagreeing ones, gives the editor what they need to make a decision.

How to structure the revision response

A strong revision response has a predictable structure:

1. Brief summary paragraph. One paragraph thanking reviewers and summarizing the major changes. Not mandatory but sets a professional tone.
2. Point-by-point responses. Each reviewer comment quoted verbatim, followed by your response. For experimental requests, describe the new data and where it appears in the revised manuscript.
3. Clear language about what changed vs. what you declined to change. If you disagree with a reviewer request, explain why respectfully and provide evidence for your position. Editors respect well-reasoned pushback more than blind compliance.

See our full guide on how to write a rebuttal letter to journal reviewers for detailed templates.

The Bottom Line

The type of revision you get tells you a lot about where the paper stands. A minor revision request means you're close , don't overthink the response. A major revision means reviewers see value but want substantive changes. Both are recoverable. The key is responding to everything explicitly and without defensiveness.

Best for

• Authors deciding between these two venues for an active manuscript this month
• Labs that need a practical trade-off across fit, timeline, cost, and editorial bar
• Early-career researchers who need a realistic first-choice and backup choice

Not best for

• Choosing a journal from impact factor alone without checking scope fit
• Submitting before methods, controls, and framing match recent accepted papers
• Treating this comparison as a guarantee of acceptance at either journal

Sources

• Published editorial guidelines from high-impact journals
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) reporting standards
• CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, and ARRIVE reporting guidelines
• Pre-Submission Checklist , 25-point audit before you submit

See also

• How to avoid desk rejection
• Pre-submission checklist

Browse review timelines by journal to know what to expect.