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 (2026-27)

recent posts

about

Tips for succeeding with “major revisions”?

In our June “how can we help you?” thread, a reader asks:

I’d like to understand in what situations, as a reviewer, one would firmly reject a paper that they have already reviewed once. Over the past year, I have experienced two cases where my papers were rejected after a round of major revisions, which has made me quite apprehensive about “major revision” decisions. If possible, I would also greatly appreciate any advice on how to handle major revisions (I realize this may be a lot to ask, so even brief suggestions would be very helpful).

It would be great to hear from reviewers on this. Like the OP, I really struggled with major revisions early in my career (I had a bunch of them rejected after resubmission). I’ve gotten better with them, which I suspect is result of learning from trial and error “what referees tend to be looking for” in manuscript revisions. Alas, I’m not sure that I can put what I’ve learned there into a list of tips. But here’s one that strikes me offhand: be able to write a really good “response to reviewers” letter.

My sense is that if you can articulate clearly and in detail how each change you’ve made to the paper addresses each of the reviewers’ concerns (citing their comments, along with pages and/or passages in your revisions), reviewers may respond positively. (N.B.: in my experience, writing the letter can be a great way of determining whether your revisions are strong, as if you feel like you struggle to make the case for a particular revision in a letter, that can lead you to realize you need to keep revising!).

Do readers have any helpful tips for the OP?

Posted in ,

16 responses to “Tips for succeeding with “major revisions”?”

  1. Anonymous

    1. Address every comment. Make changes to the extent where you can persuade yourself that the reviewer will be happy. In the response letter, make it clear where and how you responded to the comments. Don’t add more work to reviewers. Make their job easy.

    2. Sometimes be open to bullshitting if your career depends on the pub. It is sometimes more important for your career to please the reviewer than publish what is true or correct. Place some limits though. Sometimes it may be bad for your career to do what the reviewer wants, but my guess is that this would be extremely rare.

    3. Cite everything the reviewers want you to cite, even if they are irrelevant or of extremely poor quality. I could once see the other reviewers comment. The reviewer insisted that the author cite something. The author cited something else, made an excellent argument why the recommended citation was of poor quality, but the editor sided with the reviewer. As the other reviewer, I complained about this, but was ignored by the editor.

    4. Remember that sometimes some reviewers will recommend rejection if you don’t go along with their philosophical positions. While journals often state that philosophical disagreements should not be the basis for rejection, philosophical disagreements are basis for for rejections.

    5. Thank the reviewers, always, for their excellent comments that definitely improved the quality of the paper, even if the comments were not excellent and did not improve the quality of the paper.

    6. Remember that as a reviewer, I would feel that my comments are of good faith, but it is quite possible that I am just unaware of how much the power of being a reviewer corrupts myself.

    Reply
  2. Anonymous

    Do all you can to make the reviewer’s life easier. As a reviewer, for example, my job is a lot harder if the author does not highlight the changes made to the text (in a colour, or some other way). I personally would struggle to keep track if I had to compare my reviewer comments, the author’s response, the old manuscript and the new one side by side. Also, write an actual point-by-point response letter. To the letter advice above I would add: if there are changes you cannot make or questions you cannot address, do give reasons why, even if the reason is that it would take too much space to do so. Do not simply ignore them.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      I am a big fan of citing the journals’ word limits and the length of my paper for why I cannot make large additions or, in certain cases, structural changes. I’ve had the impression that many reviewers forget some of the restrictions of the journals they are reviewing for in the moment (which can be rather understandable).

      Reply
    2. Anonymous

      I find the idea of highlighting the changes a bit strange because as a reviewer I want to consider the piece as a whole again, not look to just to the changes that I suggested. If I am worried about whether they have addressed my concerns, then the point-by-point letter can provide that information. Also, when I’ve received an R&R asking for major revisions for my own writing, it usually leads to such extensive rewrites for me that there would barely be a sentence in the document that wasn’t highlighted (and this strategy has mostly been successful).

      Reply
  3. Anonymous

    As a referee I seldom recommend major revisions. And when I do, I do not think there is a presumption that the paper will be accepting for publication after revisions (There is such a presumption in the case of minor revisions). With major revisions, usually, the paper has some pretty fundamental flaws, flaws that may require a lot of work. And many authors seem reticent to really address significant challenges. But really take seriously the criticisms. If you do not like them, then move on to another journal, and hope for different referees.
    I want to briefly comment on one of the remarks by others. DO NOT just cite papers because a referee says to. I just went through this with a journal – I alerted them to the fact that the referee (R2, of course) was asking me to cite a few papers and a book by X. I took a look at X’s book (which I owned), and found they only mentioned the concept I was concerned with 16 times (and never in the way that was relevant to my paper). So I made the revisions, and sent the paper back to the journal, requesting that X not be asked to referee my paper. The paper was accepted.

    Reply
  4. Anonymous

    This is all really good advice, but I’d just add that unfortunately, sometimes major revisions are given when you’ve got a split in reviewer verdicts – one reviewer doesn’t like it and the other does. In those cases you’ve got a really uphill battle if the editor decides to send it back to the reviewer who initially didn’t like it. So do everything folks suggest above, but also try not to take it too personally if the paper doesn’t then get accepted (especially if one reviewer seemed pretty skeptical the first time around).

    Reply
  5. Sam

    No, do NOT be willing to bullshit to satisfy a reviewer. Integrity always.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      In an ideal world yes, but in the world we live in, pubs can make or break career, and there is no prize for the best jobless person with integrity. Discourage the egoistic reviewer, not the person who worked their whole life just to be thrown out of academia for some ideal they cannot afford to live up to.

      Reply
      1. Same

        Slippery slope. No deception or lying. A career of integrity! Also a renewal or promotion that comes down to a single acceptance is rare.

      2. Anonymous

        Why bother working in academia if you’re going to do it without integrity? Better to sell your soul for someone who will at least pay you a decent wage

    2. Anonymous

      I would mostly agree when it comes to the article itself, but I think a little bullshit in the response letter can go a long way. My aim in the response letter is to try to make the reviewer feel like they are the smartest person in the room. Even if I reject their suggestion or think they are mistaken, I try to spin the changes that I have made in such a way that reviewer still feels like they said something really insightful that helped improve the paper. Somewhat hyperbolically, I told someone recently, that I want to convince the reviewer that they are responsible for everything that is good in my paper. I have had lot of success with this sort of approach, and I am happy to grovel in the mud if it will allow me to publish the sorts of things that I want to publish. I imagine that one could be too obvious in their obsequiousness and this sort of approach could backfire, but the cases where I have tried to be more straightforward (though still respectful) have led to rejection (and some very rude reviewer reports).

      I’ll never forget the time that after multiple rounds of revisions, I pointed out that I couldn’t do one of the things that the reviewer had asked me to because it rested on a logical mistake. Their response was to state that the only reason they could ever see for publishing my paper was to demonstrate to others how mistaken such an approach to the philosophical problem would be, and in doing so, help them avoid wasting their time trying something similar (and this was a reviewer who I’d gone through multiple rounds of revisions with and their comments in previous reports had helped improve the paper immensely). That experience taught me that the egos of reviewers are very fragile things, and that a little bullshit in the response letter can go a long way.

      Reply
  6. Anonymous

    Here’s a slightly different take. When reading the reviewer comments, try to determine how hostile the reviewer is. As in: do they even like the paper and project? Or do their comments drip with dismals and disdain? I’ve had major revisions gets accepted; and I’ve had major revisions get rejected. My experience has been that the best predictor of whether it gets accepted or not is not how well you respond to the comments; its if the reviewer is hostile or not. If the reviewer is hostile, you can still respond in a detailed way as others have suggested. But you could also fight them more in your report with fewer in-text changes, or even try to go to the editor to try to get a new reviewer, or even withdraw your paper and try your luck elsewhere.

    Reply
  7. Anonymous

    The commenter who appears first (the list of six) is essentially correct about everything. A few things to add:

    1) Unless the major revisions are the result of a split decision (one reject and one accept/minor revisions recommendation) or is at Phil Review, you should be converting them at a rate that approaches 100%. I have published a fair amount at journals of varying strength, and every single paper I have ever published, except for one, received a major revisions recommendation first. I have never had a paper rejected after receiving a major revisions recommendation. I have had all sorts of reviewers–sympathetic, skeptical, outright hostile–and most of them can be dealt with.

    2) The thing to understand is that referee reply documents are fundamentally political, not intellectual. Having philosophically compelling replies is neither necessary nor sufficient to get your paper accepted. Your goal is to make the reviewers feel heard and happy.

    3) This requires sometimes engaging in some benign sophistry. If the reviewer gives a very bad objection, you shouldn’t just explain why it’s a very bad objection and move on. That will make them feel like you think you’re smarter than them and almost certainly result in rejection. A better strategy: first offer a few interpretations of the objection, including the very bad one, along with one that you think is mildly more substantive. Spend a bunch of time building out both versions of the objection, in your tone making them sound as compelling as possible. Then address them competently. This is sophistry at the level of interpretation, because it’s over-charity. But it doesn’t compromise the core argument, because you’re ultimately dealing with the objections in a defensible way.

    4) Do cite whatever they ask, because there is an excellent chance that’s their own work. Having an extra citation that’s ultimately irrelevant won’t matter–nobody reads these things that closely anyway. Integrity doesn’t demand that you publish is the tightest paper possible–if that were true, we’d even have to ignore a bunch of objections that have become influential in the literature. Rather, integrity requires that you don’t compromise the core argument. Dealing with reviewers is often just a matter of adding otherwise unnecessary bloat. Who cares. Thank the reviewers for pushing you on the point in the footnotes and every reader will know what happened.

    5) Politely bug journals after three months. Sometimes hostile reviewers will dawdle on submitting their R&R reviews. I had a strong journal accept a revised paper on the basis of only the sympathetic reviewer’s follow-up review because the hostile reviewer was slow.

    6) Don’t extensively quote previous referee reports. Summarize them. You don’t want to remind the reviewer of whatever tone or skepticism they previously had, because they might be in a different mood the second time around. Say something like “R1 points out that my argument…” This gives you control of the narrative and stakes of the comments as long as you don’t misrepresent their content.

    The commenter who said not to bullshit reviewers should be banned from giving advice. Sometimes you have to bullshit to make a reviewer’s bullshit objection look decent. Don’t bullshit your replies, though.

    If you refuse to recognize and act on the political aspect of R&Rs, you can enjoy being bitter at your desk job. Don’t get so precious about your manuscripts. This is all crossword puzzles anyway.

    A couple of other small things.

    i) Besides rejection, major revisions is probably the single most common first decision. The commenter who said they rarely recommend them is idiosyncratic.
    ii) Barring exceptional circumstances, like a crazy wait time, never withdraw R&Rs. If you do your job, they should result in acceptances even when the reviewer is hostile.
    iii) Don’t be blatantly obsequious; validate with a neutral tone.
    iv) If you don’t fully address something in the manuscript, do so in the reply document. Try not to use word count to justify failing to address something. As a general rule, unless the journal says otherwise in the first decision letter, treat the R&R as if the word count is infinite. You can always cut after a conditional acceptance.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      Really great and helpful answer.

      Reply
    2. grymes

      “I have never had a paper rejected after receiving a major revisions recommendation.”

      “If the reviewer gives a very bad objection, you shouldn’t just explain why it’s a very bad objection and move on. That will make them feel like you think you’re smarter than them and almost certainly result in rejection.”

      I don’t see how you can be so confident in this second assertion given your first assertion. (FWIW, I’ve also never had a paper rejected after major revisions, and have sometimes just explained why an objection is bad in the letter and moved on.)

      Reply
  8. Sam

    I’m the commenter who said don’t bullshit (deceive, lie). That’s because it’s shameful. And instead of agreeing you not only disagreed (fine) but also proposed I be banned from offering advice. Sad. FWIW I’m senior faculty with scores of articles, many in top venues, and multiple books with strong presses. Maybe there’s truth in my point. Other than that correction, I’ll add that I do think much of your advice is helpful and true. Thanks for that part.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

Continue reading