The Philosophers' Cocoon

A safe and supportive forum for philosophers.

Owned & Moderated by Marcus Arvan (University of Tampa)

Contact: marvan@ut.edu

Blog mission & moderation policy

IMPORTANT NOTE on how to ensure anonymity in commenting
Job-Market Reporting Thread (2025-26)
Job-Market Discussion Thread (2025-26)

recent posts

about

‘Major revisions’ vs. ‘minor revisions’

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

I am curious about the difference between "major revision" and "minor revision". I understand that journals might think of them differently. But is there any official policy or is it up to the editors? Is it just a "quantitative" difference about the amount of revisions one is expected to do, or is there any procedural difference in how the editors handle the revised manuscripts?

These are good questions, and it would be great to hear from some editors. I seem to recall that one journal (I can't remember which) equates each type of R&R with a certain type of probability judgment of eventual acceptance (e.g., 70% likely accept for minor revisions, 50%? for major revisions). At least anecdotally, it also seems to me that journals may use different procedures for each type of R&R, with journals sometimes recruiting a third referee for major revisions, versus perhaps only sending minor revisions to one referee (if the other referee recommended acceptance, or some such).

Anyway, it would be great to hear from others, particularly editors. How do you understand the difference between 'minor' vs. 'major' revisions in an R&R, and how (if at all) can editorial/review procedures differ between them?

Posted in ,

5 responses to “‘Major revisions’ vs. ‘minor revisions’”

  1. Douglas W. Portmore

    I think that the difference between ‘R&R, minor revisions’ and ‘R&R, major revisions’ lies more with the reviewer than with the editor or the probability of eventual acceptance. When a reviewer recommends ‘R&R, minor revisions’, I take them to be saying that they’re fairly confident that the author could make the revisions necessary to make them change their recommendation to ‘accept’. In that respect, the revisions needed are minor. By contrast, when a reviewer recommends ‘R&R, major revisions’, I take them to be saying that they believe it’s possible that the author might revise in a way that leads them to change their recommendation to ‘accept’ but that they’re not necessarily confident that they’ll be able to do so. In any case, they believe that the needed revisions are major. And the reason that I say that these judgments are not judgments about the probability of eventual acceptance is that the reviewer is not in a good position to make such a judgment given that the Editor or, in the case of Ethics, the Editorial Team can decide not to accept a paper that the reviewers eventually recommend be accepted. At Ethics, for instance, a submission must pass a vote of all the Associate Editors in order to get published. And, sometimes (though, not that often these days), a submission that both reviewers recommended accepting doesn’t pass the vote.

    Reply
  2. sahpa

    I don’t see the value of ascertaining the precise meaning of this distinction (as if there were one across the board, which there isn’t). Why is the OP asking, exactly?
    When you receive a ‘revision’ verdict of any kind, you are also given instructions for what/how to revise. So just do that. And where you want to resist the suggestions/expectations, give good reasons for doing so. But the point of revisions is to give you an opportunity to improve your paper in light of the comments you receive, so show the editor(s) and reviewers plenty of evidence that you have done so.

    Reply
  3. a humble referee

    I have refereed 200+ papers … I will tell you what I think the difference is. Major revisions means – do not send this back to the journal unless it has been changed substantially to address the concerns I have raised – I think there is hope, but I have no patience for someone making minor changes. Minor revisions means – you are almost there, and I am firmly behind you, advocating that your paper be published (but these few changes would improve it).

    Reply
  4. Tim

    In some sciences, the correlate of “major revisions” is “reject, with the possibility of resubmitting.” I noticed one philosophy journal using this phrase (can’t remember which one). Maybe this gives OP a sense of how serious a “major revisions” verdict might be.
    My own experience, as both author and reviewer, is that journals in philosophy have no uniform policy. Sometimes “major revisions” is sent to new reviewers; sometimes it is sent to old reviewers. Sometimes “minor revision” means “accepted, but change some stuff;” sometimes it means going back to reviewers.

    Reply
  5. Benny

    I know this thread is a week old, but I had a question if anyone happens to see this.
    I was really surprised by the 50% figure estimated for major revisions. At journals that distinguish between major and minor revisions, I take major to be the default R&R decision, with minor revisions being closer to a conditional acceptance. If this is right, is it really the case that close to half of R&R papers are ultimately rejected? This doesn’t track my experience, but I’m a junior person with fewer than 10 pubs.
    In addition, it doesn’t track how I think about reviewing. I recommend R&R only if I believe a paper can probably become publishable if the author is willing to make the kinds of revisions needed. If I read a paper and think it only has a 50/50 chance of being publishable even after substantial revision, I would tend to recommend straight rejecting it. Since major revisions papers get sent back to reviewers, it seems like a major drain of reviewer, author and editorial time if such a high % of these papers get rejected.
    Am I completely off? I guess it would also be helpful to know the reason for most R&R rejections–if e.g. the reviewers decide the argument doesn’t work after all, or if instead the author fails to reasonably address the comments.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Douglas W. PortmoreCancel reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading