Receiving a “major revisions required” decision can feel almost as discouraging as rejection. Your paper wasn’t dismissed outright, yet the feedback may seem extensive, critical, or overwhelming. Many authors wonder why reviewers ask for major revisions when the paper appears fundamentally sound. The reality is that major revisions are not a sign of failure. They reflect how reviewers evaluate readiness for publication—not just correctness or effort.
This article explains why reviewers ask for major revisions, what that decision really means, and how authors should interpret and respond to it constructively.
What “Major Revisions” Actually Means
In peer review, major revisions signal that:
- The paper has potential
- The core idea is acceptable
- Substantial changes are needed before publication
Reviewers are essentially saying:
“This paper could be publishable—but not in its current form.”
This is different from rejection, where reviewers see no clear path to improvement.
Why Reviewers Are Careful With Major Revision Decisions
Requesting major revisions requires effort. Reviewers:
- Must provide detailed feedback
- Expect to re-evaluate the paper
- Invest additional time later
They only recommend major revisions when they believe the paper is worth salvaging.
1. The Contribution Is Promising but Unclear
One of the most common reasons for major revisions is unclear contribution.
Reviewers may feel that:
- The study addresses an interesting problem
- The results are relevant
- The contribution is not articulated clearly enough
Rather than rejecting the paper, reviewers ask authors to clarify and sharpen the contribution.
2. The Discussion Needs Substantial Strengthening
Many major revision requests focus on the discussion section.
Reviewers often ask for:
- Deeper interpretation of results
- Stronger engagement with existing literature
- Clearer explanation of implications
A weak discussion does not invalidate the study—but it prevents reviewers from seeing its full value.
3. Methodology Is Acceptable but Insufficiently Justified
Reviewers may find the methodology broadly appropriate, yet still request major revisions because:
- Key choices are not justified
- Sampling decisions need explanation
- Analytical steps lack clarity
These issues affect trust, not correctness, and usually require careful rewriting rather than redesign.
4. Structure and Flow Obscure the Argument
Even strong studies can suffer from poor organization.
Reviewers may ask for major revisions when:
- Key points are buried
- Sections feel disconnected
- The narrative is difficult to follow
Improving structure often requires substantial reworking, which triggers a major revision decision.
5. Claims Are Too Strong for the Evidence
Overclaiming is a frequent reason reviewers request major revisions instead of rejecting a paper.
They may feel that:
- The evidence is solid
- The conclusions go too far
- Generalizations exceed the data
Rather than dismissing the study, reviewers ask authors to moderate and refine claims.
6. Important Literature Is Missing or Underused
Reviewers expect strong engagement with relevant literature.
Major revisions are often requested when:
- Key studies are missing
- Theoretical framing is thin
- Findings are not clearly situated within existing debates
These issues are fixable but require meaningful revision.
7. Transparency and Reporting Need Improvement
Increasingly, reviewers ask for major revisions due to:
- Missing methodological details
- Unclear data availability
- Incomplete ethical disclosures
These are serious but correctable issues that warrant revision rather than rejection.
8. The Paper Is Close—But Not Ready
Sometimes reviewers simply believe the paper is one strong revision away from being publishable.
In these cases, major revisions reflect:
- High standards
- Editorial caution
- Desire to improve quality
This is often a positive sign, even if it doesn’t feel that way initially.
How Reviewers Decide Between Major Revisions and Rejection
Reviewers typically reject papers when:
- The core idea is weak
- The study cannot be fixed without redesign
- The contribution is minimal or absent
They request major revisions when:
- Problems are serious but solvable
- The study has clear potential
- The paper fits the journal
How Authors Should Respond to Major Revision Requests
When facing major revisions:
- Read reviews calmly and carefully
- Identify common themes across comments
- Address every point systematically
- Be transparent about changes
- Justify disagreements respectfully
Major revisions are not about pleasing reviewers—they are about strengthening the paper.
Final Thoughts
Major revision decisions are not a verdict on your ability as a researcher. They are an invitation to improve work that reviewers believe has value.
By understanding why reviewers ask for major revisions, authors can respond strategically, revise effectively, and often turn a challenging review into a successful publication. Many accepted papers were once “major revisions required.”
The key is not avoiding criticism—but learning how to use it.
RELATED READING
- Why Many Research Papers Fail to Clearly Show Their Contribution
- Why Strong Results Still Get Rejected by Academic Journals
FROM THE WEB
- COPE guidance on peer review decisions
https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers
- Peer Review for Books & Proceedings
https://www.springernature.com/gp/reviewers/books-and-proceedings
