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

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 ,

6 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
  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

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

Continue reading