The Editor Gave Me a Chance to Revise Even Though One Reviewer Recommended Rejection: What Is the Best Strategy for a Journal Paper Major Revision?

By Dr. Aanya Mehta
Research Writer & Professional Business Communicator

Receiving a major revision decision when one reviewer has recommended rejection can feel contradictory. One part of the review package may sound encouraging, another reviewer may identify manageable improvements, and then one report appears to argue that the manuscript should not be published at all. Yet the editor has still invited you to revise and resubmit.

The most important point is this: the editor’s decision is the decision you need to act on. A reviewer’s rejection recommendation is influential feedback, but it is not the journal’s final decision when the editor has formally invited a revision. Editors consider the reviewer reports collectively and make the editorial decision; when reviews differ substantially, an editor may weigh them differently or seek additional assessment.

That does not mean you should ignore the reviewer who recommended rejection. In fact, the safest strategy is almost the opposite. Treat that report as a detailed description of the issues most likely to threaten acceptance in the next round. Your objective is not to “prove the reviewer wrong.” Your objective is to determine which objections reveal genuine weaknesses, which result from inadequate explanation, which require additional analysis, and which you can reasonably rebut with evidence.

A major revision is therefore best approached as a structured risk-reduction exercise. Read the editor’s letter first. Identify the issues that appear decisive. Break every reviewer comment into an actionable item. Revise the manuscript substantially where appropriate. Where you disagree, provide a respectful, evidence-based explanation. Then make the editor’s task as easy as possible by submitting a precise point-by-point response showing exactly what changed and where.

A revision invitation is an opportunity, not a promise of acceptance. Significant revisions may be returned to the original reviewers, and journals can request further revision or ultimately reject a revised manuscript if important concerns remain unresolved.

The strategy below explains how to use that opportunity effectively.

Quick Answer: What Should You Do When the Editor Invites a Major Revision Despite a Reject Recommendation?

If the editor has formally invited a major revision, revise the paper rather than treating the reviewer’s reject recommendation as the final outcome.

Use this order of priority:

1. Follow the editor’s decision letter and instructions.
2. Identify the reasons behind the rejection recommendation.
3. Separate fixable concerns from fundamental objections.
4. Address every substantive reviewer comment individually.
5. Make manuscript changes whenever they genuinely improve the paper.
6. Rebut only when you have a strong academic reason not to make a requested change.
7. Provide evidence, citations, analyses, or methodological reasoning when disagreeing.
8. Show exactly where each revision appears in the manuscript.
9. Check that changes made for one reviewer do not create inconsistencies elsewhere.
10. Resubmit a coherent paper, not merely a document containing isolated reviewer-requested edits.

Springer advises authors responding to revisions to address all points raised, describe major changes, provide point-by-point responses, perform appropriate additional work where necessary, and use a polite scientific rebuttal when they disagree.

The most productive mindset is therefore:

The reviewer who recommended rejection has shown you where the manuscript is most vulnerable. The editor has given you an opportunity to reduce those vulnerabilities.

Key Takeaways

• A reviewer’s recommendation to reject is not the same as an editorial rejection when the editor has issued a major-revision decision.
• Read the editor’s letter before the individual reviews, because it may reveal which issues the editor considers most important.
• Treat the reject reviewer’s strongest concerns as high-priority revision risks, not as a personal attack.
• Respond to every substantive comment, including comments you believe are mistaken.
• You do not necessarily have to accept every requested change, but disagreement should be explained politely, logically, and with evidence.
• A strong response letter should tell the editor what you changed, why you changed it, and where the change appears.
• Major revision does not guarantee acceptance; your revised manuscript may be reassessed by the same reviewers or additional reviewers.

What This Page Covers

This guide explains:

• How to interpret a major-revision decision after a reviewer recommends rejection
• How much weight to give the editor versus individual reviewers
• How to analyse a strongly negative reviewer report
• How to decide whether to revise, rebut, clarify, or decline a request
• How to build an effective point-by-point response
• How to handle conflicting reviewer comments
• How to strengthen the manuscript before resubmission
• What mistakes can turn a promising revision opportunity into a rejection
• How to assess whether your response is strong enough
• When professional research-paper editing or revision support may be useful

Table of Contents

1. What Does the Editor’s Major-Revision Decision Really Mean?
2. Why Might an Editor Offer Revision When a Reviewer Recommends Rejection?
3. Your First Priority: Read the Editor’s Letter
4. How to Analyse the Reject Reviewer’s Report
5. The Best Step-by-Step Strategy for a Major Revision
6. When Should You Accept a Reviewer’s Suggestion?
7. When Is It Reasonable to Disagree?
8. How to Write the Point-by-Point Response
9. How to Handle Conflicting Reviewer Comments
10. What If the Reviewer Has Misunderstood the Paper?
11. Major Methodological Criticism
12. Additional Experiments or Analyses
13. Common Mistakes During Major Revision
14. Practical Revision Examples
15. Final Revision Checklist
16. How Contentxprtz Can Support a Major Revision
17. Summary
18. Frequently Asked Questions
19. About the Author
20. Conclusion

Methodology and Academic Sources

The guidance in this article draws on established scholarly publishing practices and current author and reviewer guidance from major academic publishers, including Springer Nature, Elsevier, and Wiley.

These sources consistently emphasize several principles: authors should address reviewer comments systematically, explain substantive revisions, respond professionally to disagreements, and make revised manuscripts easy for editors and reviewers to evaluate.

However, journal procedures vary. Always check the specific decision letter, journal author instructions, resubmission requirements, revision deadline, file-naming rules, and any instructions regarding tracked changes or clean manuscripts.

What Does a Major Revision Mean When One Reviewer Recommended Rejection?

A major-revision decision means the editor believes the manuscript remains eligible for further consideration if substantial concerns can be addressed. It does not mean the paper is provisionally accepted.

Peer reviewers make recommendations, but the editor evaluates the reports and determines the manuscript’s editorial outcome. Wiley’s description of the peer-review process notes that the handling editor considers the returned reviews before making the decision, including situations in which reviewers disagree substantially.

This distinction matters.

Imagine that three reviewers provide the following recommendations:

Reviewer	Recommendation	Main Concern
Reviewer 1	Major revision	Methods require clarification
Reviewer 2	Reject	Claims appear stronger than the evidence
Reviewer 3	Minor/Major revision	Discussion needs strengthening

The editor might conclude that Reviewer 2 has identified a serious problem but that the problem could potentially be corrected by revising the analysis, narrowing the claims, adding limitations, or restructuring the interpretation.

The resulting editorial decision could therefore be:

Major revision

Your task is not to calculate an imaginary vote of “two reviewers versus one.” Peer review is not necessarily a majority-vote system. Your task is to respond to the editorial decision and resolve the concerns that could prevent the paper from reaching publishable quality.

Why Would an Editor Allow Revision After a Reviewer Recommended Rejection?

There are several reasonable possibilities.

The editor may believe the criticism is serious but addressable

A reviewer might recommend rejection because the manuscript, in its current form, has major weaknesses. The editor may agree with the weaknesses but believe revision could resolve them.

For example, the reviewer may object that:

• the theoretical contribution is unclear;
• important methodological information is missing;
• statistical justification is inadequate;
• conclusions overstate the findings;
• literature coverage is incomplete;
• a robustness analysis is needed;
• the discussion does not address alternative explanations.

None of these issues is automatically trivial. However, depending on the study, some can be addressed through substantial revision.

The editor may weigh the reports differently

Editors consider the quality, relevance, and reasoning of individual reports rather than simply counting recommendations. Reviewer feedback is an important part of editorial decision-making, but the editor retains responsibility for the decision.

Different reviewers may have evaluated different aspects of the study

One reviewer may focus heavily on methodology, another on theory, another on application or presentation. The editor may believe the manuscript can become suitable if the strongest concerns are resolved.

The reviewer’s comments may be more important than the recommendation label

A “reject” recommendation accompanied by five specific, technically addressable concerns may sometimes provide a clearer revision path than a “major revision” recommendation containing vague criticism.

Focus on the substance of the report, not only the recommendation category.

Your First Priority: Read the Editor’s Decision Letter Carefully

Before beginning revisions, read the editor’s letter several times.

The editor may:

• identify certain reviewer concerns as especially important;
• ask specifically for new analyses;
• indicate that conceptual positioning must change;
• request that conclusions be moderated;
• tell you which reviewer points should receive special attention;
• provide a deadline;
• request both marked and clean manuscripts;
• specify how the response document should be formatted.

Springer’s author guidance emphasizes that the editor’s letter normally outlines the changes requested and provides instructions for returning the revised manuscript.

Create three categories.

Category A: Explicit editorial requirements

These are your highest priorities.

If the editor says:

“Please address Reviewer 2’s concerns regarding causal interpretation before the manuscript can be reconsidered.”

then this issue is not optional.

Category B: Major reviewer concerns

These include issues that could affect:

• validity;
• methodology;
• novelty;
• theoretical contribution;
• interpretation;
• research ethics;
• reproducibility;
• evidential support.

Category C: Secondary revisions

These may involve:

• additional explanation;
• wording;
• figure presentation;
• reference additions;
• organization;
• minor terminology;
• grammatical corrections.

Do not spend three days perfecting Category C while avoiding Category A.

How to Analyse the Reviewer Who Recommended Rejection

Do not begin by drafting rebuttals.

Begin by diagnosing the report.

For each comment, ask:

1. What exactly does the reviewer believe is wrong?
2. Is the reviewer questioning validity, novelty, clarity, methodology, interpretation, or scope?
3. Is the criticism factually correct?
4. Could the criticism result from something being unclear in the manuscript?
5. Can the concern be resolved using existing data?
6. Would additional analysis help?
7. Does the requested change fit the research question and study design?
8. Would complying introduce a different methodological problem?
9. Does another reviewer give conflicting advice?
10. What evidence supports your eventual response?

A useful revision matrix looks like this:

Comment	Risk Level	Action	Evidence Needed	Manuscript Location
Contribution unclear	High	Rewrite introduction and discussion	Literature positioning	Introduction/Discussion
Sample justification weak	High	Add justification	Methodological rationale	Methods
Additional subgroup analysis	Medium	Conduct if valid	New analysis	Results/Supplement
Terminology inconsistent	Low	Correct throughout	None	Multiple sections

This prevents emotionally charged comments from being handled emotionally.

The Best Step-by-Step Strategy for a Journal Paper Major Revision After a Reject Recommendation

Step 1: Do not react to the word “reject”

A strongly negative review can make authors defensive. That is precisely when poor response letters are written.

Read the report, record the issues, and evaluate each one as a research problem.

Elsevier recommends responding professionally, objectively, and with evidence, including when authors believe a reviewer’s assessment is incorrect.

Step 2: Convert every reviewer comment into a numbered action item

Do not work directly from paragraphs of reviewer prose.

Create:

• Reviewer 1, Comment 1
• Reviewer 1, Comment 2
• Reviewer 2, Comment 1
• Reviewer 2, Comment 2

Then give every point a status:

• Accept and revise
• Partially accept
• Clarify
• Reanalyse
• Add evidence
• Rebut
• Cannot perform

This immediately makes the revision manageable.

Step 3: Identify the comments capable of causing rejection in round two

Prioritize concerns involving:

• invalid inference;
• inappropriate methods;
• insufficient evidence;
• missing controls;
• unsupported novelty;
• mismatch between research question and design;
• exaggerated conclusions;
• incomplete reporting;
• serious literature omissions.

A manuscript can survive numerous stylistic disagreements. It is much less likely to survive an unresolved concern about validity.

Step 4: Revise the manuscript before polishing the response letter

The response letter explains your revision. It cannot substitute for revision.

If the reviewer says the contribution is unclear, merely writing a persuasive rebuttal is rarely enough. Improve the manuscript so the contribution is clearer to the next reader as well.

Step 5: Address comments throughout the manuscript, not only at the quoted location

A major change often creates a chain of dependent changes.

Suppose you narrow the principal conclusion.

You may need to revise:

• title;
• abstract;
• highlights;
• introduction;
• hypotheses;
• results wording;
• discussion;
• conclusion;
• graphical abstract;
• supplementary materials.

Revision consistency is one of the most overlooked parts of resubmission.

Step 6: Distinguish “the reviewer is wrong” from “the manuscript was unclear”

Suppose the reviewer says:

“The authors do not explain how participants were assigned to the intervention.”

You know the assignment procedure was correct.

Your first reaction may be: “The reviewer overlooked Section 2.3.”

But if a competent reviewer could not locate or understand the explanation, the manuscript may still benefit from clearer presentation.

A productive response might therefore combine clarification and revision:

Response: Thank you for identifying this point. The assignment procedure was described in the original Methods section, but we agree that its presentation was not sufficiently prominent. We have therefore revised Section 2.3 to explain the allocation procedure more explicitly.

This protects the scientific point without unnecessarily confronting the reviewer.

Step 7: Rebut selectively

A response letter in which the authors agree with everything may suggest insufficient critical evaluation.

A response letter in which the authors disagree with everything may suggest defensiveness.

Good scholarly revision requires judgment.

If a requested analysis would be statistically invalid, theoretically inappropriate, outside the study design, impossible with the available data, or likely to create misleading conclusions, explain why.

Elsevier and Springer both indicate that authors may disagree with reviewer suggestions when they provide a clear, professional, evidence-based explanation.

Step 8: Make every answer self-contained

Avoid responses such as:

• Done.
• Corrected.
• Changed as requested.
• We disagree.
• Please see revised manuscript.

Instead write:

Reviewer comment: The discussion does not acknowledge that the cross-sectional design prevents temporal inference.

Response: Thank you for this important comment. We agree that the original discussion did not state this limitation clearly enough. We have revised the Discussion to clarify that the cross-sectional design supports association rather than temporal or causal inference. We have also moderated the corresponding statement in the Abstract and Conclusion. The revised text appears on pages X–Y, lines X–Y.

The editor can now evaluate your work without searching for it.

Elsevier specifically recommends listing comments separately, explaining how each was addressed, and indicating where revisions appear in the manuscript.

Step 9: Conduct a full-manuscript scientific review

Once individual comments are completed, temporarily stop thinking about the reviewers.

Read the revised manuscript as a new paper.

Ask:

• Is the central argument still coherent?
• Does the abstract match the revised results?
• Do research questions still align with the analysis?
• Have caveats been incorporated consistently?
• Did a requested addition create unnecessary repetition?
• Do new references change the positioning of the contribution?
• Do tables and figures match revised numerical reporting?

This converts reviewer-driven editing into genuine manuscript improvement.

Step 10: Resubmit professionally

Follow the journal’s exact requirements.

Depending on journal instructions, revision materials may include:

• response-to-reviewers document;
• revised marked manuscript;
• clean manuscript;
• supplementary materials;
• updated figures;
• updated cover letter.

Springer notes that journals may require changes to be highlighted and that revision deadlines vary by journal.

When Should You Accept a Reviewer’s Suggested Change?

Accept the suggestion when it clearly improves scientific accuracy, transparency, readability, or alignment with the journal.

Typical examples include:

• correcting an error;
• adding missing methodological information;
• explaining participant selection;
• defining variables;
• adding legitimate limitations;
• moderating unsupported claims;
• improving figures;
• clarifying theoretical reasoning;
• reporting a relevant robustness check;
• distinguishing correlation from causation;
• explaining exclusions or missing data.

Do not resist a useful change simply because you dislike how the reviewer expressed the criticism.

When Is It Reasonable to Disagree With a Reviewer?

Disagreement is reasonable when you can defend your position academically.

For example:

The requested analysis is incompatible with the design

Explain the methodological reason and, if helpful, add clarification to the manuscript.

The suggested expansion is outside the defined scope

Explain why expanding the study would change the research question rather than strengthen the existing one.

The reviewer requests unavailable data

State the limitation transparently rather than inventing or reconstructing information without justification.

The suggestion contradicts another reviewer

Explain the competing recommendations and state the approach you chose.

The requested interpretation is unsupported

Do not introduce a conclusion simply to satisfy a reviewer if the data cannot justify it.

The principle is straightforward:

You are responsible for the scientific integrity of the manuscript. Reviewers advise; authors must still exercise scholarly judgment.

How to Write a Strong Point-by-Point Response Letter

A good response document allows an editor to verify the revision quickly.

A practical structure is:

Opening paragraph

Thank the editor and reviewers briefly.

State that you have revised the manuscript substantially.

Summarize two or three of the most important changes.

Then move directly to the detailed responses.

For every comment

Use the same format consistently:

Reviewer 2 – Comment 4

[Reviewer comment]

Response

Thank the reviewer.

State whether you agree, partially agree, or respectfully disagree.

Describe what you changed.

Explain the academic reasoning.

Identify the location of the revision.

Where useful, reproduce the revised sentence or paragraph.

Example: agreeing with the reviewer

Reviewer comment:
The manuscript overstates the implications of the observed association.

Response:
We thank the reviewer for highlighting this issue. We agree that the original wording could be interpreted as implying causality. We have revised the Abstract, Discussion, and Conclusion to describe the result as an association and have added a statement explaining the limitations of causal interpretation given the observational design. The principal changes appear on pages X and Y.

Example: partially agreeing

Reviewer comment:
The authors should remove the entire theoretical framework and replace it with Theory B.

Response:
We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion and agree that Theory B provides a useful perspective that was insufficiently represented in the original manuscript. However, our research question was developed specifically from Theory A, and replacing the framework entirely would alter the conceptual basis of the study. We have therefore retained Theory A while expanding the Introduction and Discussion to explain Theory B, clarify the relationship between the two perspectives, and acknowledge the alternative interpretation.

Example: respectfully disagreeing

Reviewer comment:
The authors should compare the intervention and control groups using repeated independent t-tests at every time point.

Response:
We thank the reviewer for raising the question of between-group differences over time. We respectfully prefer to retain the prespecified longitudinal analysis because repeated independent testing would not appropriately represent the repeated-measures structure of the data and would create additional multiplicity concerns. To make this reasoning clearer, we have expanded the Statistical Analysis section and now report the relevant estimated group-by-time effects more explicitly.

The response succeeds because it explains the decision rather than simply refusing the request.

How Should You Handle Conflicting Reviewer Comments?

Conflicting comments are common enough that authors should not assume they must literally implement both.

Elsevier recommends addressing differing reviewer opinions individually and explaining the reasoning behind the approach selected.

Suppose:

Reviewer 1: Shorten the theoretical background substantially.

Reviewer 2: Expand the theoretical justification.

Trying to satisfy both mechanically may produce an incoherent introduction.

Instead:

1. Identify the underlying concerns.
2. Determine what best serves the manuscript.
3. Check whether the editor signaled a preference.
4. Implement a balanced revision.
5. Explain the decision to both reviewers.

For example:

Response to Reviewer 1:
We agree that portions of the original background were unnecessarily detailed and have shortened the descriptive discussion.

Response to Reviewer 2:
We agree that the manuscript needed stronger justification of the mechanism underlying Hypothesis 2. Although we shortened less relevant background material, we expanded this specific theoretical argument.

Now both concerns contribute to a better manuscript.

What If the Reject Reviewer Has Misunderstood Your Paper?

Treat misunderstanding as information.

If the reviewer misunderstood the research question, methods, or conclusions, ask why the manuscript permitted that interpretation.

Possible causes include:

• ambiguous wording;
• assumptions introduced too late;
• missing definitions;
• poorly labelled figures;
• inconsistent terminology;
• insufficient methodological detail;
• exaggerated statements;
• important information buried in supplementary material.

A reviewer misunderstanding can therefore justify a manuscript change even when the reviewer’s substantive interpretation is technically incorrect.

Instead of:

“The reviewer has misunderstood our paper.”

consider:

“We appreciate this comment. Our intended distinction was not sufficiently clear in the original manuscript. We have revised the relevant section to make explicit that…”

You can then explain the scientific point.

What If the Reject Recommendation Is Based on Major Methodological Criticism?

This requires the greatest care.

Separate methodological comments into three categories.

1. The criticism identifies a correctable reporting problem

Examples:

• missing inclusion criteria;
• incomplete description of measures;
• unexplained model specification;
• missing sensitivity analysis.

Correct the problem thoroughly.

2. The criticism identifies a real limitation that cannot be repaired

Examples might include characteristics of the original design or data that cannot be changed retrospectively.

Do not pretend the limitation has disappeared.

Instead:

• acknowledge it;
• analyse its consequences;
• moderate claims;
• explain why the study still provides useful evidence;
• add limitations where appropriate.

3. The criticism suggests the core design cannot answer the research question

This is the most serious case.

Consult co-authors and methodological experts before resubmitting. You may need to:

• reformulate the research question;
• narrow the claims;
• undertake substantial reanalysis;
• add new data where legitimately possible;
• reconsider whether the manuscript remains suitable for that journal.

A polished response letter cannot rescue an analysis that does not support the paper’s central claim.

Do You Need to Perform Every Additional Experiment or Analysis Requested?

Not automatically.

Springer advises authors to undertake recommended additional work when appropriate, while allowing authors to explain why a requested experiment or analysis would not improve the paper.

Use four questions:

1. Is the request necessary to support a central conclusion?
2. Is the request methodologically appropriate?
3. Can it be answered with the study design and available data?
4. Would it materially strengthen the manuscript?

If yes, doing the work may substantially reduce the risk of rejection.

If no, explain why.

Avoid saying:

“This is beyond the scope of the paper.”

without explanation.

Instead state what the study was designed to test, why the additional request would constitute a different investigation, and whether you have added the issue as a limitation or future research direction.

Practical Example 1: The Reviewer Says the Study Lacks Novelty

Situation

Two reviewers see value in the findings. Reviewer 3 recommends rejection because “the manuscript does not demonstrate sufficient novelty.”

Weak response

“We disagree. Our study is novel.”

Better strategy

First investigate whether the manuscript actually explains its contribution clearly.

Revise:

• the final paragraphs of the literature review;
• the research gap;
• the theoretical contribution;
• comparison with the closest previous studies;
• the Discussion.

Then respond:

Response:
We thank the reviewer for raising this fundamental issue. We agree that the original manuscript did not distinguish our contribution sufficiently from the closest prior studies. We have substantially revised the Introduction to identify three specific differences: [A], [B], and [C]. We have also rewritten the Discussion to explain which findings confirm previous work and which extend it. We believe these revisions make the manuscript’s contribution more precise without overstating its novelty.

Why this works

The response addresses the reviewer’s underlying concern rather than fighting the recommendation label.

Practical Example 2: The Reviewer Challenges the Statistical Analysis

Situation

A reviewer argues that the analytical approach does not sufficiently account for an important characteristic of the data and recommends rejection.

Weak response

“Our statistician says the method is correct.”

Better strategy

Re-evaluate the analysis with someone appropriately qualified.

If the reviewer is correct:

• redo the analysis;
• update tables;
• revise results;
• update discussion and conclusion;
• explain whether conclusions changed.

If your approach remains defensible:

• provide methodological reasoning;
• cite appropriate methodological literature where necessary;
• expand the Methods section;
• run a sensitivity analysis if useful and valid.

Why this works

Methodological objections need methodological answers.

Authority alone—“our statistician says so”—does not explain why an approach is appropriate.

Practical Example 3: The Reviewer Says the Conclusions Are Too Strong

Situation

The study identifies an association, but the manuscript occasionally uses causal language. The reject reviewer considers the conclusions unreliable.

Weak response

“We believe readers understand that we are not claiming causality.”

Improved revision

Change:

“X leads to Y.”

to:

“X was associated with Y in the study population.”

Then:

• remove causal language elsewhere;
• discuss potential confounding;
• add relevant limitations;
• explain what future designs would be needed for stronger inference.

Why this works

Sometimes the quickest way to rescue a manuscript is not to defend the strongest possible claim, but to state the strongest claim the evidence actually supports.

Practical Example 4: The Reviewer Requests a Completely Different Study

Situation

Your paper examines employees in one national context. The reviewer requests replication in three other countries before publication.

Better response

Acknowledge the value of cross-national validation but explain that collecting several new national samples would constitute a substantially expanded research project.

Then improve the manuscript by:

• clarifying the population to which conclusions apply;
• reducing unjustified generalization;
• adding external-validity limitations;
• discussing cross-national replication as future research.

A reasonable reviewer request can still be disproportionate to the defined study. Your response should show that you understand the scientific issue even when you cannot fulfil the exact request.

Common Mistakes That Can Turn a Major Revision Into a Rejection

1. Treating the editor’s invitation as evidence that the reject reviewer can be ignored

This is dangerous. That reviewer’s concerns may be exactly what the editor expects you to resolve.

2. Arguing about the recommendation instead of addressing the comments

Do not write:

“We were surprised that Reviewer 2 recommended rejection because the other reviewers were positive.”

The comparison contributes little.

Respond to the scientific issues.

3. Making superficial textual changes to deep scientific concerns

A validity concern cannot usually be resolved by adding two sentences to the Discussion.

4. Responding emotionally

Avoid language such as:

• “The reviewer clearly failed to read…”
• “This criticism is completely wrong.”
• “We cannot understand why…”
• “The reviewer is inconsistent.”

Use neutral language.

5. Agreeing in the response letter but failing to modify the paper

The reviewer may see the manuscript again.

Wiley notes that significant revisions are often returned to original reviewers and that the purpose of reassessment is to determine whether requested changes have been adequately addressed.

6. Changing one section and forgetting dependent sections

If results change, check the abstract, discussion, conclusion, figures, tables, supplement, and highlights.

7. Hiding limitations

Acknowledging a genuine limitation often strengthens credibility more than attempting to explain it away.

8. Adding citations only to satisfy the reviewer

Check whether recommended literature is genuinely relevant. Do not cite papers merely because a reviewer suggested them.

9. Writing an excessively long defensive rebuttal

A response should be complete, not combative.

10. Assuming major revision means eventual acceptance

It does not.

Treat the resubmission as another evaluation stage.

A Practical Major-Revision Response Matrix

Before drafting the final response document, complete a table like this:

Reviewer Issue	Type	Manuscript Action	Response Strategy
Novelty unclear	Conceptual	Rewrite research gap	Agree and revise
Method poorly justified	Methodological	Expand rationale	Agree/clarify
New analysis requested	Analytical	Run valid analysis	Revise or justify
Claim exceeds evidence	Interpretive	Moderate language	Agree
Reviewer misunderstood term	Clarity	Define earlier	Clarify and revise
Request outside design	Scope	Add limitation	Respectfully disagree
Conflicting reviewer advice	Editorial	Balanced revision	Explain decision
Minor wording correction	Presentation	Correct	Agree

The benefit is simple: nothing disappears between the reviewer report and the final resubmission.

Final Checklist Before You Resubmit

Editorial decision

• Have I followed every explicit instruction in the editor’s letter?
• Have I identified which issues may be decisive for reconsideration?
• Have I checked the journal’s revision deadline and submission requirements?

Reviewer responses

• Is every substantive reviewer comment reproduced or clearly identified?
• Does every comment have a response?
• Are disagreements respectful and evidence-based?
• Have I avoided defensive language?
• Have I identified where changes appear?

Manuscript

• Have major scientific concerns been addressed in the manuscript itself?
• Does the abstract reflect the revised paper?
• Do aims, methods, results, and conclusions still align?
• Have claims been moderated where evidence requires it?
• Are new analyses reported completely?
• Are figures, tables, supplementary files, and main text consistent?
• Have added references been verified?
• Have all tracked changes been reviewed?

Final submission package

• Point-by-point response complete
• Revised manuscript complete
• Clean manuscript prepared if required
• Marked manuscript prepared if required
• Supplementary files updated
• Cover letter revised
• Journal-specific formatting checked
• Co-authors have approved the final submission

How Contentxprtz Can Help With a Difficult Major Revision

A major revision can become especially demanding when the reviewer objections involve manuscript structure, academic English, unclear argumentation, response-letter strategy, or inconsistencies created during extensive rewriting.

Contentxprtz provides academic editing, research support, publication assistance, and reviewer-response support for researchers and academic authors. The company states that it has operated since 2010 and supports researchers internationally.

For a major revision, appropriate professional support may include:

• checking whether every reviewer comment has been answered;
• improving the clarity and tone of the response letter;
• reviewing whether manuscript changes correspond to stated responses;
• strengthening academic language;
• improving transitions and argument structure;
• identifying inconsistencies introduced during revision;
• checking alignment among the abstract, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion;
• proofreading the revised manuscript before resubmission.

Researchers who need this type of support can explore Contentxprtz’s research paper editing service.

Professional editing should support scholarly communication rather than replace the researcher’s intellectual responsibility. Authors remain responsible for their research design, data, analyses, interpretations, references, claims, and final submission. Researchers should also check their institution’s and journal’s rules regarding acceptable editorial assistance.

Summary: Best Strategy When a Reviewer Recommends Rejection but the Editor Invites Major Revision

When one reviewer recommends rejection but the editor offers a major revision, follow the editor’s revision decision while treating the negative review as a serious source of information about the manuscript’s publication risks.

Do not try to defeat the reviewer.

Instead:

1. Read the editor’s letter first.
2. Identify the reviewer’s fundamental objections.
3. Categorize every comment.
4. Prioritize scientific and methodological concerns.
5. Make substantive manuscript changes where justified.
6. Clarify areas the reviewer misunderstood.
7. Rebut only when there is a defensible academic reason.
8. Support disagreements with evidence or methodological reasoning.
9. Respond point by point.
10. Show exactly where revisions were made.
11. Check the entire manuscript for consistency.
12. Follow the journal’s resubmission requirements precisely.

Major revision is neither rejection nor acceptance. It is an opportunity to demonstrate that the revised manuscript can withstand the concerns identified during peer review.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Does a reviewer’s reject recommendation mean my revised paper is likely to be rejected?

Not necessarily. If the editor has issued a major-revision decision, the journal has chosen to allow you to revise the manuscript rather than reject it at that stage.

However, you should treat the negative reviewer’s substantive concerns seriously. Editors consider reviewer reports when making decisions, and a revised manuscript may be returned to reviewers to assess whether the original problems have been resolved.

The safest approach is not to speculate about acceptance probabilities. Identify why the reviewer recommended rejection and make each concern easier for the editor to consider resolved.

2. Who has more authority: the reviewer who recommended rejection or the editor who requested revision?

The editor makes the editorial decision.

Reviewers provide expert assessment and recommendations. The handling editor evaluates the reviews and determines whether the manuscript should be rejected, revised, or otherwise processed according to the journal’s procedures.

Therefore, when the official decision is major revision, you should respond to the revision decision.

At the same time, do not interpret this hierarchy as permission to dismiss a reviewer. The reviewer’s concerns may strongly influence the editor’s next decision.

3. Should I respond differently to the reviewer who recommended rejection?

Your tone should remain equally respectful toward every reviewer, but you may need to devote more attention to the reject reviewer’s major objections.

Ask what drove the recommendation.

If the reviewer identifies problems involving validity, contribution, methodology, interpretation, or evidential support, your response should show precisely how those problems have been addressed.

Do not mention repeatedly that the reviewer recommended rejection. Respond to the reasoning, not the label.

4. Do I have to make every change requested by reviewers?

No. Authors can disagree with reviewer suggestions when they have a sound academic reason.

Both Springer and Elsevier advise authors to explain disagreements professionally and support their position with appropriate reasoning or evidence.

A useful principle is:

Revise when the change improves the paper; rebut when the requested change would be inappropriate; clarify when the comment reveals a communication problem.

Never reject a suggestion merely because it requires substantial work.

5. What is the best way to write a response to a very critical reviewer?

Break the report into individual comments and answer them one by one.

For every point:

• acknowledge the concern;
• state what you did;
• explain your reasoning;
• identify the revised location;
• provide evidence when disagreement is necessary.

Avoid sarcasm, defensiveness, and statements about the reviewer’s competence.

Elsevier recommends an organized, point-by-point response that makes it easy for editors and reviewers to identify what has changed.

6. What if the reviewer is factually wrong?

Correct the issue respectfully, but also consider whether the manuscript itself contributed to the misunderstanding.

Explain the accurate information, provide evidence where appropriate, and revise the manuscript if clearer wording would prevent future readers from reaching the same interpretation.

A productive formulation is:

“We appreciate the opportunity to clarify this point. The intended interpretation is X. Because the original wording may not have made this sufficiently clear, we have revised…”

That is generally stronger than simply writing, “The reviewer is incorrect.”

7. What if two reviewers give contradictory instructions?

Do not mechanically implement incompatible recommendations.

Identify the concern underlying each suggestion, determine which approach produces the strongest manuscript, and explain your decision in both responses.

If the editor’s letter explicitly prioritizes one approach, follow that guidance.

Elsevier’s peer-review guidance recommends addressing differing reviewer perspectives individually and explaining the reasoning behind the approach chosen.

8. Could the same reviewer reject the paper again after major revision?

Yes, a significantly revised manuscript may be sent back to original reviewers, and a reviewer may conclude that important concerns remain unresolved. Wiley notes that significant revisions are commonly returned to original reviewers, although journal procedures vary.

Your goal should therefore be to make the revised manuscript and response document sufficiently clear that a reviewer can verify how each major issue has been addressed.

Do not assume the editor alone will evaluate the revision.

9. How much should I change a manuscript after a major-revision decision?

Change as much as necessary to address the scientific and editorial concerns, but do not make unrelated changes merely to make the revision appear extensive.

A major revision may require substantial modifications to theory, analysis, presentation, interpretation, or structure.

Remember that one revision can affect multiple sections. If an analysis changes, for example, the abstract, results, tables, discussion, limitations, and conclusion may all require corresponding updates.

The quality and coherence of the revised manuscript matter more than the visible quantity of changes.

10. What is the best strategy to tackle a journal paper major revision that has received a reject recommendation from one reviewer?

Treat the editor’s major-revision decision as a genuine opportunity while treating the rejection recommendation as your highest-risk reviewer feedback.

Read the editor’s priorities first. Convert the reviewer report into specific action items. Resolve substantive methodological and conceptual problems before cosmetic ones. Make manuscript changes wherever the criticism is valid or reveals unclear communication. When you disagree, provide a polite, evidence-based explanation. Then prepare a complete point-by-point response showing what changed and where.

Finally, review the manuscript as an integrated paper rather than a collection of responses to reviewers.

That combination—substantive revision, disciplined rebuttal, and transparent documentation—is generally the strongest strategy.

About the Author

Dr. Aanya Mehta
Research Writer & Professional Business Communicator

Dr. Aanya Mehta is a research-oriented writer and professional communicator with a strong focus on accuracy, clarity, and evidence-based insight. Her work combines analytical thinking with accessible writing, helping readers understand complex business topics through well-researched, credible, and practical content.

Conclusion

A reviewer’s recommendation to reject can be unsettling, but when the editor has formally invited a major revision, the manuscript still has an active path forward.

Your best strategy is not to focus on whether the negative reviewer was “right” or “wrong.” Focus on the weaknesses that made rejection appear reasonable to that reviewer.

Strengthen the methodology where necessary. Clarify the contribution. Moderate claims that exceed the evidence. Add relevant analyses when scientifically justified. Explain genuine disagreements calmly. Respond to every substantive point. And make it effortless for the editor and reviewers to see how the manuscript has improved.

The distinction between a reviewer recommendation and an editorial decision is important, but so is the distinction between receiving a chance to revise and earning acceptance after revision. A major-revision invitation means there is more work to do.

For some researchers, a careful self-review with co-authors will be sufficient. When extensive rewriting, language refinement, structural editing, or reviewer-response review is needed, professional research paper editing support can help improve clarity and presentation while preserving the researcher’s intellectual ownership and responsibility.

“At Contentxprtz, we don’t just edit; we help ideas reach their fullest potential.”