Major vs. Minor Revisions: A Decision Guide for Prioritizing Reviewer Comments

By Dr. Zubair Khalid, DVM, MS, PhD · 2026-08-27

Quick Answer

• Classify each reviewer comment by whether it affects the validity of your study design, analysis, or interpretation, since these carry the most weight in editorial decisions.
• Address major revisions with visible changes to methods, results, or discussion, while minor revisions typically require clarification, formatting, or additional context in your response letter.
• No scoring system guarantees acceptance, because editorial judgment and journal-specific policies ultimately determine outcomes regardless of how thoroughly you respond.

Understanding the Revision Decision Framework

Peer review exists to improve the accuracy and transparency of published research. When you receive a decision letter with reviewer comments, the editor is asking you to demonstrate that your work meets the standards of the journal and the broader scientific community. The distinction between major and minor revisions is not a formal classification used uniformly across journals, but rather a practical signal about the depth of changes expected before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

The Committee on Publication Ethics describes peer review as a core practice that journals should conduct fairly and transparently. This means reviewers are expected to provide constructive feedback that helps authors strengthen their work. Your job as an author is to interpret that feedback within the context of your study's goals and the journal's requirements. The Core Practices framework from COPE emphasizes that peer review should be based on the merits of the work, not on personal or institutional considerations.

The revision process is fundamentally about communication. You are communicating with the editor and reviewers through your revised manuscript and your response letter. Every comment you receive, whether labeled major or minor, is an opportunity to clarify your thinking and demonstrate that you have engaged seriously with the feedback. The practical question is how to allocate your time and effort across comments that range from fundamental methodological concerns to simple typographical corrections.

At a Glance: Comment Classification Table

This classification system helps you triage comments based on their potential impact on the scientific validity of your work and the strength of your contribution. Comments that threaten the validity of your conclusions require the most attention because they directly affect whether your findings can be trusted. Comments about clarity and formatting, while important, rarely change the fundamental conclusions of your study.

Core Principles for Prioritizing Reviewer Comments

Validity Questions Take Precedence

The most important distinction in revision work is between comments that question the validity of your study and comments that request improvements to presentation. Validity questions include concerns about sample size justification, selection bias, confounding variables, inappropriate statistical tests, or overinterpretation of results. These comments strike at the heart of whether your conclusions are supported by your data.

When a reviewer questions your statistical approach, you need to determine whether the concern is valid. This may require consulting with a statistician, reanalyzing your data with alternative methods, or providing additional justification for your original approach. The Research Methods Resources gateway from the National Library of Medicine provides access to authoritative texts on study design and statistical analysis that can help you evaluate reviewer concerns.

The key question for any validity-related comment is whether the reviewer has identified a genuine flaw or a misunderstanding. If the reviewer has identified a genuine flaw, you must address it directly, even if that means redoing analyses or acknowledging limitations more prominently. If the reviewer has misunderstood your methods, you need to clarify your approach with additional detail and justification.

Contribution Questions Shape Your Framing

Comments that question the novelty or significance of your work require careful attention because they affect how the editor evaluates your contribution. These comments often ask you to compare your findings with existing literature, explain how your work advances the field, or discuss the practical implications of your results.

The EQUATOR Network provides reporting guidelines that help authors present their research transparently and completely. Using the appropriate reporting guideline for your study type can address many reviewer concerns about missing information or unclear presentation. These guidelines also help you structure your revision to ensure that all essential elements of your study are reported.

When responding to contribution questions, focus on what your study adds beyond existing knowledge. This may require additional literature searches, more detailed discussion of your findings in context, or explicit acknowledgment of limitations that constrain the scope of your conclusions. The goal is to help the editor and reviewers understand why your work matters despite its limitations.

Clarity and Formatting Comments Are Lower Risk

Comments about clarity, organization, figure quality, or reference formatting are important but rarely threaten the scientific validity of your work. These comments should be addressed thoroughly but efficiently. A well-organized response letter that shows each clarity comment has been addressed with a specific change will satisfy most reviewers.

Formatting requirements vary by journal, and the editor's instructions in your decision letter should guide your approach. Some journals require specific reference styles, figure formats, or supplementary material organization. These requirements are typically mechanical and can be addressed without changing the substance of your work.

Practical Workflow for Managing Revisions

Step 1: Read All Comments Before Responding

Read the decision letter and all reviewer comments completely before making any changes. This initial read helps you understand the overall scope of the revision and identify connections between comments. Reviewers sometimes raise similar concerns, and addressing them together can be more efficient than treating each comment in isolation.

Create a complete list of every comment from all reviewers and the editor. Number each comment for reference in your response letter. This list becomes your working document throughout the revision process.

Step 2: Classify Each Comment by Impact

Use the classification system from the At a Glance table to assign each comment to a category. This classification helps you allocate your time and effort appropriately. Validity threats require the most attention, while formatting requests can be addressed quickly.

For each comment, ask yourself three questions:

1. Does this comment affect whether my conclusions are supported by my data?
2. Does this comment affect how readers will understand the contribution of my work?
3. Does this comment affect whether my manuscript meets the journal's formatting requirements?

Comments that trigger a yes answer to the first question are your highest priority. Comments that trigger a yes answer to the second question are your second priority. Comments that only trigger the third question are your lowest priority.

Step 3: Develop a Response Strategy for Each Comment

For each comment, decide whether you will:

• Make the requested change
• Make a partial change with justification
• Decline the change with a detailed explanation

Most comments should result in a change, even if the change is modest. Reviewers are more likely to recommend acceptance when they see their concerns have been taken seriously. However, you are not obligated to make every requested change. If a reviewer asks for something that would compromise the integrity of your study or that is based on a misunderstanding, you can decline with a respectful explanation.

The Core Practices framework emphasizes that peer review should be conducted fairly. This applies to authors as well as reviewers. You have the right to push back on comments you believe are incorrect, as long as you do so professionally and with evidence.

Step 4: Address Validity Comments First

Begin your revision work with comments that affect the validity of your study. These comments require the most thought and may require new analyses, additional data collection, or significant rewriting. Starting with these comments ensures you have enough time to address them properly.

If a validity comment requires statistical consultation, seek help early. Many institutions offer statistical consulting services for researchers. The Research Methods Resources gateway can help you identify appropriate statistical methods and study design considerations.

Step 5: Revise the Manuscript

Make changes to the manuscript that address each comment. Track your changes carefully so you can describe them accurately in your response letter. Use the track changes feature in your word processor or maintain a detailed log of changes.

For major revisions, you may need to restructure sections, add new analyses, or substantially rewrite the discussion. For minor revisions, changes are typically more focused and may involve clarifying specific passages, adding citations, or improving figures.

Step 6: Write the Response Letter

The response letter is a critical document that accompanies your revised manuscript. It should address every comment from every reviewer and the editor. For each comment, describe what you changed and where the change appears in the revised manuscript.

Organize your response letter by reviewer and comment number. Use a table format that shows the reviewer comment, your response, and the location of the change. This format makes it easy for reviewers to verify that their concerns have been addressed.

The EQUATOR Network emphasizes transparent reporting of research. Your response letter is part of that transparency. It shows the editor and reviewers exactly how you addressed their feedback and why you made the decisions you did.

Step 7: Review the Complete Package

Before submitting your revision, review the complete package: the revised manuscript, the response letter, and any supplementary materials. Check that every comment has been addressed and that your response letter accurately describes the changes you made.

Verify that your manuscript follows the journal's formatting requirements and that all figures and tables are properly formatted. Check that your references are complete and correctly formatted according to the journal's style.

Records and Measurements for Revision Tracking

Maintaining a Comment Response Matrix

A comment response matrix is a practical tool for tracking your progress through the revision process. Create a table with columns for comment number, reviewer, comment summary, classification, planned response, status, and location of change in the revised manuscript.

This matrix serves multiple purposes. It helps you ensure that no comment is overlooked. It provides a record of your decisions that you can reference when writing your response letter. It also helps you estimate the time required for each category of comment and allocate your effort accordingly.

Tracking Time Investment by Comment Category

Record the time you spend on each category of comment. This information helps you understand where your revision effort is concentrated and whether you are allocating time proportionally to impact. Validity comments should receive the most time, while formatting comments should receive the least.

If you find yourself spending excessive time on clarity or formatting comments while validity comments remain unaddressed, adjust your priorities. The goal is to address all comments, but the depth of response should match the impact of the comment on your study's validity and contribution.

Documenting Decisions for Future Reference

Keep a record of the decisions you made during the revision process. This documentation is valuable if you need to explain your choices to the editor or if you encounter similar situations in future submissions. It also helps you identify patterns in reviewer feedback that may inform how you design and report future studies.

The ORCID for Researchers resource emphasizes the importance of maintaining a complete record of your research activities. Your revision documentation is part of that record and can be referenced in future applications or reports.

Common Failure Patterns in Revision Responses

Treating All Comments Equally

One common failure is treating all comments with the same level of effort. This approach wastes time on formatting issues while underaddressing validity concerns. Reviewers and editors notice when substantive concerns receive superficial responses.

The consequence of this failure is that your revision may not adequately address the concerns that matter most for acceptance. The editor may send your manuscript back for additional revision or reject it if validity concerns remain unresolved.

Ignoring Comments You Disagree With

Another failure pattern is ignoring comments you disagree with or dismissing them without explanation. Even if you believe a comment is incorrect, you must address it in your response letter. Ignoring a comment signals that you are not taking the review process seriously.

The appropriate response to a comment you disagree with is a respectful explanation of why you believe the comment is incorrect, supported by evidence from your data or the literature. The Core Practices framework supports respectful professional communication between authors and reviewers.

Making Changes Without Explanation

Some authors make changes to the manuscript but fail to explain those changes in the response letter. This failure makes it difficult for reviewers to verify that their concerns have been addressed. Reviewers may assume that comments were ignored if they cannot find the corresponding changes.

Every change you make should be described in your response letter with a specific location reference. This transparency helps reviewers evaluate your revision efficiently and reduces the likelihood of additional rounds of revision.

Overpromising in the Response Letter

A related failure is describing changes in the response letter that do not actually appear in the revised manuscript. This can happen when you plan a change but fail to implement it, or when you describe a change more broadly than what you actually did.

Reviewers who check your claims and find discrepancies will lose trust in your revision. This can lead to additional revision requests or rejection. Always verify that your response letter accurately describes the changes in your manuscript.

Failing to Address Editor Comments

Editors sometimes include their own comments in the decision letter, separate from reviewer comments. These comments carry particular weight because they reflect the editor's assessment of your manuscript. Failing to address editor comments is a serious error that can derail your revision.

Treat editor comments with the same seriousness as validity comments from reviewers. The editor makes the final decision on your manuscript, and their concerns must be addressed directly.

Options and Tradeoffs in Revision Strategies

Comprehensive Revision vs. Targeted Revision

A comprehensive revision addresses every comment with substantial changes, while a targeted revision focuses on the most critical comments and addresses others more briefly. The appropriate strategy depends on the nature of the comments and the editor's expectations.

Comprehensive revisions are appropriate when reviewers have identified multiple substantive concerns. This approach demonstrates that you have taken the review process seriously and are willing to make significant improvements to your work. However, comprehensive revisions require more time and may introduce new errors if changes are not carefully integrated.

Targeted revisions are appropriate when comments are mostly minor or when you have strong justification for declining certain suggestions. This approach is more efficient but carries the risk that reviewers will feel their concerns were not adequately addressed.

Accepting All Suggestions vs. Selective Acceptance

Some authors accept every suggestion from reviewers to avoid conflict. This approach can lead to a manuscript that reflects the reviewers' preferences instead of your own scientific judgment. It can also introduce inconsistencies if reviewer suggestions conflict with each other or with your data.

Selective acceptance, where you accept suggestions that improve your work and decline those that do not, requires more effort but produces a stronger manuscript. The key is to provide clear justification for each decision, whether you accept or decline a suggestion.

Rewriting vs. Clarifying

Some comments require substantial rewriting, while others can be addressed with targeted clarification. The appropriate approach depends on the nature of the comment and the current state of your manuscript.

Rewriting is appropriate when a section is fundamentally unclear or when new information needs to be integrated. Clarifying is appropriate when the existing text is essentially correct but needs additional detail or better phrasing. Overrewriting can introduce new problems, while underclarifying can leave reviewers unsatisfied.

Welfare and Safety Context in Research Communication

Protecting Research Integrity

The revision process is part of the broader system of research integrity. The Core Practices framework from COPE addresses key areas including research data, authorship, and peer review. Your revision should uphold these principles by accurately representing your data and methods.

If your revision reveals problems with your data or analysis, you have an obligation to address them honestly. This may mean acknowledging limitations more prominently or, in rare cases, retracting claims that are not supported by your data. The Core Practices framework provides guidance on handling research misconduct and errors.

Data Management and Sharing Considerations

The Data Management and Sharing Policy from NIH describes expectations for managing and sharing research data. While this policy applies specifically to NIH-funded research, the principles of good data management apply broadly to all research.

During revision, you may need to prepare data for sharing, create data availability statements, or provide supplementary materials that support your findings. The NIH Grants and Funding resource provides information about grant requirements that may affect your data management obligations.

Transparency in Reporting

The EQUATOR Network promotes transparent and accurate reporting of research. Using reporting guidelines during revision helps ensure that your manuscript includes all essential information that readers need to evaluate your work.

Transparent reporting is particularly important when addressing reviewer comments about missing information. If a reviewer asks for details that are not included in your manuscript, the appropriate response is to add that information, not to explain why it was omitted.

Professional Escalation Criteria

When to Consult a Statistician

Seek statistical consultation when a reviewer raises concerns about your statistical methods that you cannot confidently address. This includes questions about sample size justification, choice of statistical tests, handling of missing data, or interpretation of statistical results.

Statistical consultants can help you evaluate whether reviewer concerns are valid and identify appropriate alternative analyses. They can also help you write clear statistical methods sections that address common reviewer concerns.

When to Consult a Colleague or Mentor

Consult a colleague or mentor when you are uncertain about how to respond to a comment or when you disagree with a reviewer's assessment. An outside perspective can help you evaluate whether your response is appropriate and whether you are being overly defensive or overly accommodating.

Colleagues who have experience with the target journal can provide insight into editorial expectations and common revision patterns. They can also review your response letter before submission to identify potential issues.

When to Contact the Editor

Contact the editor directly when you have questions about the revision requirements or when you need clarification about a comment. Editors expect authors to seek clarification when needed, and most prefer that you ask questions instead of guess about expectations.

Contact the editor if you believe a reviewer comment is based on a misunderstanding of your work that cannot be resolved through revision. In this case, provide a clear explanation of the misunderstanding and your proposed response.

When to Consider Withdrawing the Manuscript

Consider withdrawing the manuscript if the revision requirements are so extensive that you cannot reasonably address them, or if the revision reveals fundamental problems with your study that cannot be fixed. Withdrawal is a serious decision that should be made in consultation with coauthors and mentors.

The Core Practices framework provides guidance on handling manuscripts that cannot be revised satisfactorily. Withdrawing a manuscript is preferable to submitting a revision that does not adequately address reviewer concerns.

Limitations of the Classification System

Subjectivity in Comment Classification

The classification system described in this article is a practical tool, not a formal standard. Different authors may classify the same comment differently based on their understanding of their study and the journal's requirements. The system is designed to help you think systematically about priorities, not to provide a detailed explanation for every comment.

Your classification should be informed by your knowledge of your study's strengths and weaknesses. A comment that seems minor to one author may reveal a significant issue to another who has deeper knowledge of the study's context.

Journal-Specific Variations

Journals vary in how they handle revisions. Some journals use a formal major/minor revision designation, while others provide more nuanced guidance. Some journals limit the number of revision rounds, while others allow multiple rounds.

The editor's decision letter is your primary source of information about the journal's expectations. Read it carefully and follow any specific instructions it contains. The classification system in this article is a supplement to, not a replacement for, the editor's guidance.

Reviewer Reliability

Reviewers vary in the quality and relevance of their comments. Some reviewers provide detailed, constructive feedback that clearly improves your work. Others provide comments that are vague, incorrect, or based on misunderstandings.

The Core Practices framework emphasizes that peer review should be fair and constructive. However, individual reviewers may not always meet this standard. Your response should be professional regardless of the quality of the comments you receive.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do I decide whether a reviewer comment is major or minor?

Evaluate whether the comment affects the validity of your study design, analysis, or conclusions. Comments that question your methods or interpretation are major because they affect whether your findings can be trusted. Comments that request clarification, additional context, or formatting changes are minor because they do not change the substance of your work.

What should I do if I disagree with a reviewer comment?

Address the comment directly in your response letter with a respectful explanation of why you believe it is incorrect. Support your explanation with evidence from your data or the literature. The Core Practices framework supports professional communication between authors and reviewers.

How detailed should my response letter be?

Your response letter should address every comment from every reviewer and the editor. For each comment, describe what you changed and where the change appears in the revised manuscript. If you declined a suggestion, explain why. The level of detail should be sufficient for reviewers to verify that their concerns have been addressed.

Can I ask the editor for clarification about a comment?

Yes, editors expect authors to seek clarification when needed. Contact the editor if you do not understand a comment or if you are uncertain about the revision requirements. It is better to ask questions than to guess about expectations and submit an inadequate revision.

How long should I spend on a revision?

The time required depends on the scope of the revision. Major revisions that require new analyses or substantial rewriting may take several weeks. Minor revisions that require clarification and formatting changes may take only a few days. Focus on quality instead of speed, but be mindful of any deadlines specified in the decision letter.

What if I cannot address a comment because I lack the necessary data or resources?

Explain the limitation in your response letter and describe what you can do within your constraints. You may be able to acknowledge the limitation in your manuscript or suggest it as a direction for future research. The editor will evaluate whether your response is adequate given your circumstances.

Should I make every change a reviewer requests?

No, you are not obligated to make every requested change. You should make changes that improve your work and decline changes that would compromise its integrity or that are based on misunderstandings. For each declined suggestion, provide a clear explanation of your reasoning.

How do I handle conflicting comments from different reviewers?

Address each comment individually and explain how you resolved the conflict. If reviewers make contradictory suggestions, you may need to choose one approach and justify your choice. The editor can help resolve conflicts if you are uncertain about the best approach.

Using the Evidence

Related Articles

• Responding to Peer Review: A Structured Revision and Response Process
• Meta-Analysis vs Peer Review: Understanding the Differences
• Peer Review Metrics: What They Are and How to Use Them
• Agriculture Major Jobs: What Can You Do With an Agriculture Degree?
• Meta-Analysis vs Scoping Review: Which Approach Answers Your Question?

References and Further Reading

• Research Methods Resources. National Library of Medicine.
• EQUATOR Network. EQUATOR Network.
• Core Practices. Committee on Publication Ethics.
• NIH Grants and Funding. National Institutes of Health.
• ORCID for Researchers. ORCID.
• Data Management and Sharing Policy. National Institutes of Health.
• NCBI Literature Resources. National Center for Biotechnology Information.
• PubMed. National Library of Medicine.

This article is educational and does not replace institutional policy, professional advice, or applicable safety and regulatory requirements.