A major revision from a Scopus journal means the editor will likely publish your paper once you address every reviewer concern in full.
A major revision from a Scopus journal means the editor will likely publish your paper once you address every reviewer concern in full. It is an invitation, not a rejection — and for Vietnamese researchers, a major revision is the most common route into a Q1 or Q2 journal, and the stage where a publishable paper is most often won or lost.
The difference between authors who succeed at this stage and those who stall is rarely the quality of the science. It is the discipline of the revision: how you read the decision letter, plan the work, rebuild the manuscript, and document every change. This guide answers the seven questions Vietnamese researchers ask MAAS publishing mentors most often when a "major revision" email lands in their inbox.
Author: MAAS Publishing Strategy Desk · Reviewed by a Principal Publishing Advisor (PhD, Scopus Q1 author and peer reviewer)
Last updated: 2026-06-12
Category: research-methods
What does a "major revision" decision actually mean?
Direct answer: A major revision is a conditional acceptance signal: the editor sees publishable value but wants substantive changes before deciding. It sits between a minor revision (small, quick fixes) and a "reject and resubmit" (rebuild and try again). Unlike an outright reject, a major revision keeps your paper alive at the same journal and gives you a roadmap to acceptance.
Evidence: Elsevier's author guidance describes revision decisions as the journal expressing continued interest conditional on the author resolving reviewer concerns (Elsevier, n.d.). Annesley (2011) notes that first-round acceptance is uncommon and that most eventually published papers pass through at least one substantive revision round, making the response a decisive — not incidental — part of publishing.
Example: A MAAS Publishing Advisory client targeting a Q2 health journal received a decision with fourteen reviewer comments and read it as a near-rejection. The decision word was "major revision." After a structured three-week revision with a mentor, the paper was accepted on the second round — the comments had been a checklist, not a verdict.
How should you read the decision letter and plan the revision before writing anything?
Direct answer: Read the full letter twice, then wait a day before acting. Separate the editor's framing from the reviewers' lists, and sort every comment into three buckets: changes you agree with, changes you can partly accommodate, and points you will respectfully defend. Map each comment to a concrete task and an owner before you touch the manuscript.
Evidence: Noble (2017) recommends treating the response as a structured project rather than an emotional reaction, and Williams (2004) advises authors to extract the actionable substance from even harshly worded reviews. Both stress that planning the revision — not rushing to rewrite — is what produces a coherent second-round manuscript.
Example: A Vietnamese PhD candidate coached by MAAS built a simple revision tracker: a table listing each reviewer comment, the planned action, the responsible author, and the manuscript location to be changed. The table turned twenty-two scattered comments into a finite to-do list, and nothing was missed when the response letter was assembled.
The four decision outcomes — and what each one asks of you — look like this:
| Decision | What it means | Typical action | Usual deadline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accept | Publishable as is (rare on first submission) | Final proofs only | Days |
| Minor revision | Small fixes; editor re-checks | Wording, references, clarifications | 14–30 days |
| Major revision | Conditional interest; back to reviewers | Substantive changes + response letter | 30–90 days |
| Reject and resubmit | Rebuild; treated as a new submission | Major reworking, new submission | No fixed clock |
How do you organise the response document — cover letter, summary, and point-by-point replies?
Direct answer: Build three layers. A short cover letter to the editor thanking them and summarising the headline changes; a half-page bulleted summary of major revisions; and a point-by-point response that copies each comment verbatim and answers it directly beneath, with page and line references. Every comment gets a visible reply, even when the answer is simply "done."
Evidence: Frontiers and Springer Nature author guidance both prescribe the comment-in-bold / response-below format with manuscript locations so reviewers can verify changes quickly (Frontiers, n.d.; Springer Nature, n.d.). Annesley (2011) and Noble (2017) agree that addressing every single point — and showing exactly where each change appears — is the strongest predictor of a smooth second round.
Example: A MAAS-coached author structured each entry as: "Reviewer 2, Comment 4: [pasted comment]. Response: We agree and have added a limitations paragraph (p. 15, lines 320–334): '[new text].'" Reviewer 2 returned the second round with one line — "all concerns addressed" — because verification took minutes, not a re-read.
What if a reviewer asks for new experiments, data, or analyses you cannot fully do?
Direct answer: You do not have to do everything, but you must respond to everything. Where a request is feasible, do it and show the result. Where it is not — no access to the sample, out of scope, or beyond the study design — explain the constraint honestly, offer the strongest available alternative (a re-analysis, a sensitivity check, or a framing as a stated limitation and future-work direction), and let the editor judge.
Evidence: Williams (2004) advises authors to distinguish requests that strengthen the paper from those that exceed its scope, and to justify partial responses with evidence rather than silence. Elsevier's guidance confirms that a reasoned, transparent explanation of what could not be done is acceptable when supported by a clear rationale (Elsevier, n.d.).
Example: A reviewer asked a MAAS client in a Medical AI study to collect an external validation cohort she could not access within the timeline. Rather than ignore it, she added an internal cross-validation, acknowledged external validation as a limitation, and named it as the next study. The editor accepted the compromise, and the paper progressed to acceptance.
How long do you have, and how do you manage the major-revision timeline?
Direct answer: Major revisions usually carry a 30-to-90-day deadline stated in the decision email, against 14 to 30 days for a minor one. Do not sacrifice completeness for speed — a thorough revision beats a fast, thin one. If you need more time, email the handling editor before the deadline; extensions are routinely granted when requested early.
Evidence: Elsevier's author FAQ confirms that revision deadlines appear on the submission-system dashboard and that authors may request extensions through the system or directly from the editor (Elsevier, n.d.). Annesley (2011) reinforces that editors value a complete, well-documented response over a rushed one that leaves comments half-answered.
Example: A MAAS Publishing Advisory client in a joint Vietnam–Australia programme had 60 days, needed to re-run a statistical model, and emailed the editor for two extra weeks. The editor agreed the same day. The short, well-communicated delay had no effect on the final acceptance.
What happens in the second round, and what if it is rejected after revision?
Direct answer: In the second round the same reviewers usually check whether you addressed their points, so consistency between your letter and the manuscript matters most. Many papers are accepted or sent for a quick minor revision here. If the paper is rejected after a major revision, the detailed comments make it far easier to place at a well-matched alternative journal.
Evidence: Noble (2017) emphasises that a transparent, point-by-point letter builds reviewer trust across rounds and reduces back-and-forth. Springer Nature's guidance notes that second-round review focuses on whether prior concerns were resolved, which is why precise location references shorten the cycle (Springer Nature, n.d.).
Example: A Vietnamese researcher coached by MAAS had a Q1 submission rejected after one major revision because of fit, not quality. Using the reviewers' detailed feedback, she reframed the contribution and submitted to a better-matched Q2 journal, where it was accepted within months — the first round had effectively peer-reviewed the paper for free.
What mistakes turn a winnable major revision into a rejection?
Direct answer: The avoidable failures are predictable: skipping comments, arguing instead of evidencing, hiding changes the reviewer cannot find, missing the deadline without asking, and submitting English that obscures the revisions. Each one signals that the author did not take the round seriously — and a second rejection is far harder to recover from than the first.
Evidence: Annesley (2011) and Williams (2004) both identify unanswered comments and defensive tone as the most common reasons a revision fails despite sound science. Frontiers (n.d.) warns that responses without clear manuscript locations force reviewers to re-read the paper, which slows and sours the decision.
Example: A MAAS mentor reviewing a client's draft response found three comments answered only in the manuscript but not in the letter, and one reply that disagreed without a citation. They added explicit letter entries with page references and supported the disagreement with two sources. The corrected response went back clean, and the reviewers raised no further objections.
Frequently asked questions
Is a major revision a rejection?
No. A major revision means the journal is interested and will reconsider your paper after you address the comments. It is one of the most common paths to publication in Scopus Q1 and Q2 journals.
Do I have to address every reviewer comment?
Yes. Every comment needs a visible response in your letter, even if it is "done — see p. 7." Leaving comments unanswered is the fastest route to a second rejection.
Can I refuse to make a change a reviewer requested?
Yes, politely and with evidence. Acknowledge the point, explain your reasoning with a citation or data, and offer a compromise such as a stated limitation. Editors respect a well-argued defence.
What is the difference between major and minor revision?
Minor revision means small fixes that the editor re-checks quickly. Major revision means substantive changes that go back to the original reviewers for a second round.
How long does a major revision usually take?
Journals typically give 30 to 90 days. If you need more time, email the handling editor before the deadline — extensions are commonly granted when requested early.
Can MAAS help me respond to a major revision?
Yes. MAAS Publishing Advisory coaches Vietnamese researchers through the full revision cycle — interpreting the decision, planning the work, drafting the response letter, and refining the manuscript — using the Outline → Draft → Final model with PhD-level, Scopus-published mentors.
Ready to turn "major revision" into "accepted"?
The decision email is not the end of the process — it is the stage where most Scopus papers are actually earned. With a mentor who has sat on both sides of peer review, a daunting list of reviewer comments becomes a clear, answerable plan.
MAAS Academic Mentoring pairs you with a discipline-matched mentor within 48 hours, works through the Outline → Draft → Final model, and backs coaching with our three-tier guarantee (Pass / Merit / Distinction) and a 90-day warranty. With 100+ experts — 23% holding PhDs — your revision is reviewed by someone who has published where you want to publish. Start with a free 20-minute consultation.
Book a Publishing Advisory consultation with MAAS →
Related guides
- How do you respond to reviewer comments on a Scopus journal submission? — the response letter, disagreements, and language criticism in depth
- How does a Vietnamese researcher get published in a Scopus Q1 or Q2 journal? — the full publication journey before revisions
- Why does the Outline → Draft → Final method work for Scopus Q1 publication? — the method MAAS uses through every revision round
- Publishing Advisory service — full service tiers for Scopus Q1/Q2 support
- Scopus Publishing resource hub — response-letter templates and revision checklists
- Meet the MAAS expert network — the PhD-level mentors behind every revision
References
- Annesley, T. M. (2011). Top 10 tips for responding to reviewer and editor comments. Clinical Chemistry, 57(4), 551–554. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2011.162388
- Committee on Publication Ethics. (n.d.). Guidance for authors. Retrieved June 12, 2026, from https://publicationethics.org/guidance
- Elsevier. (n.d.). How to revise and resubmit your article. Retrieved June 12, 2026, from https://www.elsevier.com/researcher/author/submit-your-paper
- Frontiers. (n.d.). How to respond to reviewer comments. Retrieved June 12, 2026, from https://www.frontiersin.org/for-authors/submitting-research/how-to-respond-reviewer-comments
- Noble, W. S. (2017). Ten simple rules for writing a response to reviewers. PLOS Computational Biology, 13(10), Article e1005730. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005730
- Springer Nature. (n.d.). Responding to reviewers. Retrieved June 12, 2026, from https://www.springernature.com/gp/authors
- Williams, H. C. (2004). How to reply to referees' comments when submitting manuscripts for publication. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 51(1), 79–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2004.01.049
This article is part of the MAAS Journal series for Vietnamese international postgraduate students and researchers. MAAS Publishing Advisory is an advisory partner — we coach authors through the Outline → Draft → Final delivery model with developmental feedback from PhD-level, Scopus-published mentors. We do not write, submit, or guarantee acceptance of work on an author's behalf.