My Paper Was Rejected After Major and Minor Revision: Is It Common?
By Dr. Aanya Mehta
Research Writer & Professional Business Communicator
If you are asking, “My paper was in a journal for one major revision and one minor revision, then we revised according to the comments and suggestions, but finally got a rejection without any editor comments—is it common?”, the short answer is yes, it can happen.
It is understandably frustrating. After surviving initial peer review, completing a major revision, responding carefully to reviewer comments, completing another minor revision, and waiting through multiple editorial rounds, most authors naturally feel that acceptance is close. A rejection at that stage can therefore feel unexpected—and a rejection with little or no explanation can feel especially difficult to understand.
However, a request for major revision or minor revision is normally not the same as final acceptance. Until the journal formally issues an acceptance decision, the editor retains responsibility for deciding whether the revised manuscript has reached the journal’s publication standard. Elsevier’s reviewer guidance explicitly notes that reviewer recommendations support editorial decision-making but that the final decision remains with the editor. Wiley similarly explains that editors consider reviewer reports and can decide whether a manuscript should be revised, accepted, or rejected.
A late-stage rejection does not necessarily mean that your revisions were poor. Sometimes the authors may have responded fully to the visible reviewer comments, but the editor or reviewers still believe that a fundamental concern remains. New concerns can also emerge while assessing the revised paper. Wiley’s guidance for reviewing revised manuscripts specifically acknowledges that additional issues can occasionally arise during revision assessment.
The absence of detailed editor comments is a separate issue. Some journals provide extensive explanations, while others communicate decisions briefly. Springer Nature’s editor guidance, for example, states that authors should be given reasons for rejection, particularly when a manuscript is rejected after editorial consideration.
The important question now is not simply “Was this fair?” It is also: “What is the most productive next step for this manuscript?”
This guide explains what may have happened, when an appeal might be reasonable, when submitting elsewhere is usually wiser, and how to prepare the paper for its next opportunity.
Quick Answer: Can a Paper Be Rejected After Major and Minor Revision?
Yes. A journal can reject a manuscript even after one major revision followed by one minor revision. Revision requests are encouraging because they indicate that the journal saw enough potential to continue considering the paper, but they do not automatically guarantee publication.
A major revision generally means substantial changes are needed before the editor can determine whether the manuscript is publishable. A minor revision usually suggests that the manuscript is closer to an acceptable form, but the precise meaning of these labels varies among journals.
The final decision belongs to the journal’s editor. Reviewers normally make recommendations; editors make publication decisions. Elsevier states this distinction clearly in its reviewer guidance.
If you received a rejection after apparently satisfying all reviewer comments, first examine the complete decision letter, submission portal, reviewer files, supplementary attachments, and previous correspondence. If no meaningful reason has been given, a short, professional request for clarification may be appropriate before you decide whether to appeal or submit the manuscript elsewhere.
Key Takeaways
- Rejection after major and minor revisions is possible and does occur.
- A revision decision should not automatically be interpreted as acceptance.
- A minor revision generally indicates progress, but it is not always a contractual promise of publication.
- Addressing every reviewer comment does not necessarily mean the editor must accept the paper.
- Editors may consider scientific quality, journal fit, unresolved methodological issues, reviewer recommendations, and other editorial considerations.
- If the rejection contains no meaningful explanation, requesting clarification politely can be reasonable.
- An appeal is usually worthwhile only when you can identify a substantive factual, technical, procedural, or ethical basis for challenging the decision.
- In many situations, revising the manuscript further and submitting it to another suitable journal is faster and more productive than contesting the rejection.
What This Page Covers
This guide explains:
- Why manuscripts can be rejected after multiple revision rounds
- What major and minor revision decisions actually mean
- Whether a minor revision means your paper is almost accepted
- Why rejection can occur even after you answer every reviewer comment
- What to do when the editor provides no explanation
- When an appeal may be justified
- When submitting to another journal is the better strategy
- How to audit your response-to-reviewers document before resubmission
- Common mistakes authors make after receiving a late-stage rejection
- How professional manuscript editing and publication support may help
Table of Contents
- Is Rejection After Major and Minor Revision Normal?
- What Major Revision Actually Means
- What Minor Revision Actually Means
- Why a Paper May Still Be Rejected
- Why Rejection Without Editor Comments Can Happen
- What to Check Before Contacting the Journal
- Should You Ask the Editor for Clarification?
- Should You Appeal the Rejection?
- Appeal or Submit Elsewhere?
- What to Do With the Manuscript Next
- How to Strengthen the Paper Before Resubmission
- Three Practical Scenarios
- Common Mistakes to Avoid
- Checklist Before Your Next Submission
- How Contentxprtz Can Support Authors
- Summary
- Frequently Asked Questions
- About the Author
- Conclusion
Methodology and Academic Sources
The guidance in this article is based on established scholarly publishing practice and publicly available editorial guidance from major academic publishers, including Elsevier, Wiley, and Springer Nature.
The terminology used for editorial decisions is not completely standardized. A decision called “major revision” at one journal may function differently from a similarly named decision at another. Some journals also distinguish between “revise,” “revise and resubmit,” “conditional acceptance,” and other categories.
Therefore, your journal’s own author guidelines, editorial policies, decision letter, and appeal policy should take priority when interpreting your particular case.
Is Rejection After Major and Minor Revision Normal?
It is certainly possible, and it is not evidence by itself that something improper happened.
Consider the editorial path:
Initial submission → Peer review → Major revision → Revised manuscript → Minor revision → Revised manuscript → Final editorial assessment
At every stage before formal acceptance, the manuscript remains under consideration.
Wiley explains that revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers after significant revisions and that additional issues can sometimes emerge when the revision is examined.
A published editorial discussion in a Wiley journal also illustrates that major revision → rejection can occur as part of an editorial pathway, even though other sequences such as major revision → minor revision → acceptance are also possible.
That distinction is important.
A revision invitation generally means:
“We are willing to consider a substantially or moderately revised version.”
It does not necessarily mean:
“We have decided to publish your paper.”
What Does a Major Revision Mean?
A major revision normally means that the editor sees potential in the manuscript but believes substantial concerns must be addressed before publication can be considered.
Depending on the article and discipline, major revisions might involve:
- Reworking the methodology explanation
- Providing additional analyses
- Addressing concerns about study design
- Reorganizing major sections
- Strengthening the theoretical framework
- Revising interpretation of results
- Addressing missing literature
- Clarifying novelty or contribution
- Reconsidering claims that go beyond the evidence
- Providing additional methodological justification
- Responding comprehensively to reviewer concerns
Receiving major revision is generally more encouraging than outright rejection because the journal has invited you to continue the process.
However, it remains an evaluation stage.
Wiley’s reviewer guidance explains that significant revisions are commonly returned to reviewers so that they can determine whether the requested changes were adequately addressed.
What Does a Minor Revision Mean?
A minor revision generally means that the remaining problems appear more limited and potentially straightforward to correct.
Typical minor revisions may include:
- Clarifying particular sentences
- Correcting terminology
- Adding limited references
- Improving tables or figures
- Addressing minor inconsistencies
- Explaining a methodological point more clearly
- Correcting formatting or presentation
- Softening unsupported statements
- Making small additions requested by reviewers
Minor revisions are often assessed directly by the editor rather than undergoing another complete round of peer review. Wiley describes this as a common approach, although journal practices vary.
This explains why authors often become optimistic after moving from major revision to minor revision.
That optimism is reasonable.
But it is still important to distinguish between:
High likelihood of progress
and
Formal acceptance
Only the journal’s acceptance decision confirms publication.
Does Minor Revision Mean the Paper Is Almost Accepted?
Often it means the paper is closer to acceptance, but not always.
Suppose the editor says:
Minor revisions are required before a final decision can be made.
That language clearly leaves the final decision open.
Even when only minor corrections remain, the editor may discover that an apparently minor response has created another scientific problem, failed to address the concern, or changed an important interpretation.
The revised manuscript must therefore be treated with the same care as the original submission.
Authors sometimes reduce their level of attention during a minor revision because they assume acceptance is inevitable. That is risky.
Why Can a Paper Be Rejected After You Answered All Reviewer Comments?
This is one of the most important points to understand.
Responding to every comment is not necessarily the same as resolving every concern.
You may have written a response to Reviewer 2, Point 6. But the editor may still believe the underlying scientific issue remains.
For example:
Reviewer comment:
“Please justify the sampling strategy.”
Author response:
“We have added an explanation of the sampling strategy on page 8.”
The comment has technically been answered.
But if the added explanation does not demonstrate that the sampling strategy was appropriate, the scientific concern remains unresolved.
A strong response therefore needs to do more than acknowledge each comment. It should demonstrate how the manuscript has been improved or explain, using defensible reasoning and evidence, why a requested change should not be made.
Common Reasons for Rejection After Revision
There is rarely one universal explanation. Possible reasons include the following.
1. A Major Scientific Concern Remained Unresolved
The authors may have revised the text extensively without fully solving a methodological or conceptual problem.
This is particularly difficult when the problem is structural rather than editorial.
Examples include:
- An unsuitable research design
- Insufficient data
- An unsupported causal interpretation
- Inadequate validation
- Serious sampling limitations
- Inconsistent analytical methods
- Conclusions that remain stronger than the evidence
Language editing cannot repair an underlying research-design problem.
2. The Reviewer Was Not Satisfied With the Revision
The authors may believe they addressed the comment successfully while the reviewer reaches a different conclusion.
Peer-review responses often fail when they explain what was changed but not why the change resolves the concern.
3. The Editor Disagreed With the Reviewers
Reviewers provide recommendations rather than binding decisions.
Elsevier states that the editor ultimately determines acceptance or rejection and may weigh different reviewer views or seek another opinion.
Therefore, even positive reviewer recommendations do not automatically bind the editor.
4. A New Concern Emerged During Revision
A revision can occasionally expose a problem that was not apparent previously.
For example, an author might:
- Add a new analysis that contradicts another result
- Modify the methods section in a way that raises questions
- Introduce a new theoretical interpretation that is unsupported
- Add data without explaining how they were obtained
- Change conclusions beyond what the revised analysis supports
Wiley explicitly notes that additional issues can occasionally emerge while a revised manuscript is being assessed.
5. A New Reviewer Became Involved
Sometimes the original reviewer is unavailable, declines another round, or the editor decides that another expert opinion is necessary.
A new reviewer may identify a concern that earlier reviewers did not raise.
This can be particularly frustrating for authors who feel they were “almost finished,” but additional expert review can occur within legitimate editorial processes.
6. Reviewer Opinions Conflicted
One reviewer may recommend acceptance while another remains concerned.
Wiley notes that when reviews differ substantially, editors may seek an additional opinion before reaching a decision.
7. The Editor Identified a Journal-Fit or Contribution Issue
Scientific correctness is not always the only consideration.
Depending on journal policy, editors may consider whether the paper sufficiently serves the journal’s scope, readership, contribution threshold, or editorial priorities.
This is why a technically competent manuscript may still be unsuitable for a particular journal while remaining publishable elsewhere.
8. The Response Letter Was Not Persuasive Enough
The response-to-reviewers document is not an administrative formality.
It is one of the most important documents in a revision.
Weak responses include:
- “Done.”
- “Corrected as suggested.”
- “We disagree.”
- “Changed.”
- “The reviewer misunderstood.”
- “No change necessary.”
Better responses identify:
- The reviewer’s concern
- The authors’ position
- The exact revision made
- Where the revision appears
- Evidence or reasoning supporting the response
Why Would a Journal Reject the Paper Without Editor Comments?
This is understandably the most confusing part of the situation.
If the decision simply states “Reject” without explaining why, you may be left unable to determine whether the problem was scientific, editorial, procedural, or related to the revision.
Several possibilities exist.
The detailed reasoning may be:
- In an attached reviewer report
- Inside the manuscript-submission portal
- Included in a supplementary decision file
- Contained in confidential reviewer recommendations that were not shared with authors
- Reflected indirectly in earlier reviewer comments
- Missing because of a journal workflow or communication problem
- Omitted because the editor used a short standard decision template
However, providing meaningful reasoning is considered good editorial practice. Springer Nature’s guidance for editors states that reject decisions should explain the reasons for rejection and why the work is unsuitable for the journal. Wiley similarly describes the decision communication as including relevant reviewer comments.
So if you genuinely received no reviewer comments and no editorial explanation, it is reasonable to investigate before drawing conclusions.
What Should You Check Before Emailing the Journal?
Do not immediately send an angry appeal.
First perform a complete document check.
Check the Decision Email
Read:
- The subject line
- The editor’s opening paragraph
- Any text below the automatic system message
- Reviewer sections
- Attachments
- Links to the submission portal
Sometimes the actual explanation appears far below the decision heading.
Check the Submission System
Log in and look for:
- Decision letter
- Reviewer comments
- Editor comments
- Attached reviewer files
- Annotated manuscript
- Supplementary documents
Compare the Last Two Revision Rounds
Review:
- The original major-revision letter
- Your first response
- The minor-revision letter
- Your final response
- The rejected manuscript version
Ask yourself whether every significant concern was actually resolved.
Check the Journal’s Editorial and Appeal Policies
Policies differ substantially among publishers and individual journals.
Do not assume that another journal’s procedure applies to yours.
Should You Ask the Editor for Clarification?
Yes, if no meaningful reason for rejection was provided, a concise and respectful request for clarification can be appropriate.
Do not start by accusing the editor or reviewers of unfairness.
Instead, explain that you would like to understand the reason so that you can determine the manuscript’s appropriate next step.
A professional inquiry could say:
Subject: Request for Clarification Regarding Decision on Manuscript [ID]
Dear Editor,
Thank you for considering our manuscript, “[Title],” and for the opportunity to revise it through the previous major- and minor-revision rounds.
We have received the final rejection decision. However, we were unable to identify any editorial or reviewer comments explaining the remaining concerns that led to the decision.
We would be grateful if you could kindly clarify the principal reason(s) for the rejection, particularly so that we can understand whether there are scientific or editorial issues that should be addressed before considering the manuscript elsewhere.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Kind regards,
[Corresponding Author]
The objective is information, not confrontation.
Should You Appeal the Rejection?
An appeal may be appropriate, but rejection after revision alone is usually not sufficient grounds for an appeal.
An appeal becomes more defensible when you can demonstrate a specific problem.
Examples might include:
- A reviewer made a demonstrably incorrect factual claim
- The editor appears to have overlooked a revision that directly resolved the cited concern
- The decision appears to rely on a misunderstanding that can be documented
- A reviewer or editor may have an undisclosed conflict of interest
- The journal did not follow a material part of its stated editorial procedure
- The rejection is based on a technical issue that can be objectively disproved
Elsevier’s current appeals policy allows authors of peer-reviewed manuscripts to appeal editorial decisions but requires a reasoned argument and supporting evidence. It also states that reconsideration does not guarantee acceptance.
Springer Nature similarly advises that appeals are generally appropriate when authors can provide a rational, evidence-based challenge rather than merely disagreeing with the editorial outcome.
Appeal or Submit to Another Journal?
This is often the most important strategic decision after rejection.
| Situation | Appeal May Make Sense | Submit Elsewhere May Be Better |
|---|---|---|
| Clear factual error influenced rejection | Yes | Possibly |
| Editor overlooked documented revision | Possibly | Depends on journal |
| No explanation provided | Ask for clarification first | Possibly |
| You simply disagree with editor’s judgement | Usually weak basis | Often |
| Journal fit appears to be the problem | Rarely | Yes |
| Fundamental methodological concern remains | Usually not | Revise first |
| Reviewer interpretation is demonstrably incorrect | Possibly | Depends on evidence |
| Another suitable journal is readily available | Consider opportunity cost | Often |
| Rejection is based on novelty or priority judgement | Usually difficult to appeal | Often |
| Clear procedural irregularity occurred | Possibly | Depends on policy |
The strongest appeals are usually based on verifiable errors or procedural problems, not disappointment.
What Should You Do With the Manuscript Now?
A late-stage rejection does not erase the work completed during revision.
In fact, your manuscript may now be significantly stronger than when you originally submitted it.
Use that advantage.
Step 1: Preserve the Complete Editorial History
Save:
- Every manuscript version
- Reviewer comments
- Editor letters
- Response-to-reviewer documents
- Supplementary files
- Tracked-change copies
You may need these documents when evaluating the rejection.
Step 2: Separate Emotional Reaction From Manuscript Assessment
A rejection after months of revision is disappointing.
But avoid immediately undoing previous revisions simply because the journal rejected the paper.
Many reviewer suggestions may have genuinely strengthened the manuscript.
Step 3: Identify Remaining Scientific Weaknesses
Read the manuscript as though you were reviewing it for another journal.
Ask:
- Is the research question clear?
- Is the novelty explicit?
- Is the methodology defensible?
- Are limitations transparent?
- Do the results support the conclusions?
- Have potentially controversial claims been qualified?
- Is the discussion proportionate to the evidence?
Step 4: Reassess Journal Fit
Do not automatically send the manuscript to the next journal on a ranking list.
Compare:
- Aims and scope
- Recent published papers
- Article type
- Methodological expectations
- Target readership
- Subject specialization
- Word and figure limits
A strong manuscript sent to an unsuitable journal may face another rejection for reasons unrelated to its technical quality.
Step 5: Rewrite the Cover Letter
Do not reuse the old cover letter unchanged.
Your manuscript has evolved.
The new letter should explain:
- The research problem
- Principal contribution
- Why the paper matters
- Why it fits the new journal
- What is genuinely novel
Step 6: Perform a Clean Submission Audit
Once you select a new journal, treat the manuscript as a fresh submission.
Check:
- Journal formatting
- Reference style
- Word limits
- Abstract structure
- Figures
- Tables
- Supplementary material
- Ethics statements
- Author contribution statements
- Conflict-of-interest declarations
- Data-availability requirements
Three Practical Scenarios
Scenario 1: Major Revision → Minor Revision → Rejection With an Unresolved Methodology Issue
A researcher submits a quantitative paper.
The first reviewers request substantial clarification of the sampling approach and statistical model.
The authors make significant revisions and receive minor revision.
During the final assessment, however, the editor concludes that the sampling limitation cannot be resolved by rewriting because it affects the generalizability of the main claims.
What happened?
The revision improved the manuscript, but the remaining concern involved the underlying study rather than merely its presentation.
Best response:
Do not assume that further proofreading will solve the problem. Reframe claims, strengthen limitations, reassess analyses where possible, and target a journal where the study’s actual scope remains meaningful.
Scenario 2: All Reviewer Comments Addressed but Editor Rejects
A management researcher receives a major revision and responds carefully to every reviewer.
The second round is minor.
After resubmission, the editor rejects the article because the contribution is considered insufficient for the journal.
What happened?
Responding successfully to peer-review comments did not remove the editor’s broader responsibility to judge whether the manuscript met the journal’s publication threshold.
Best response:
Unless the decision rests on a factual misunderstanding, an appeal may have limited value. The revised manuscript may nevertheless be competitive at a well-matched journal with different contribution expectations.
Scenario 3: Rejection Arrives With No Explanation
A doctoral researcher completes two rounds of revision.
The system sends:
Decision: Reject
No editor comments or reviewer reports appear in the email.
What happened?
It is impossible to determine from the notification alone.
Best response:
Check the submission portal and attachments first. If no explanation exists there either, contact the editorial office politely and request clarification before deciding whether to appeal.
How to Strengthen a Paper Before Resubmitting Elsewhere
Recheck the Central Contribution
Can you explain the manuscript’s contribution in two or three sentences?
If not, the editor may also struggle to identify why the paper belongs in the literature.
Audit Every Claim
Distinguish among:
- What your data demonstrate
- What your findings suggest
- What previous literature establishes
- What remains speculative
Overclaiming is a common reason reviewers lose confidence in otherwise useful research.
Revisit the Discussion
A good discussion should do more than repeat results.
It should explain:
- What was found
- Why it matters
- How it compares with previous research
- What alternative interpretations exist
- What limitations matter
- What future work is justified
Review the Response-to-Reviewers Document
Even if a new journal will not see it, your old response letter contains a valuable map of vulnerabilities in the manuscript.
Every reviewer concern should prompt a question:
Could another reviewer raise this again?
If yes, improve the manuscript proactively.
Common Mistakes After a Late-Stage Rejection
Mistake 1: Assuming the Paper Must Be Bad
A rejection decision applies to a manuscript’s consideration by a particular journal at a particular time.
It does not establish that the research has no publication value.
Mistake 2: Sending an Angry Email Immediately
An emotional response rarely improves the situation.
Editorial communication should remain factual, specific, and professional.
Mistake 3: Appealing Simply Because You Completed the Revisions
Completing requested work does not itself prove the final decision was erroneous.
An appeal needs a substantive basis.
Mistake 4: Submitting the Exact Same Version Somewhere Else
The previous peer-review process has already given you information about potential weaknesses.
Use it.
Mistake 5: Removing Every Previous Revision
Some authors become frustrated and revert toward the original manuscript.
That may discard genuine improvements.
Evaluate revisions intellectually, not emotionally.
Mistake 6: Assuming “Minor Revision” Equals Acceptance
This expectation makes late rejection especially shocking.
Treat every revision round seriously until an official acceptance letter arrives.
Mistake 7: Focusing Only on English Language
Good language matters, but publication decisions also depend on scientific reasoning, research design, analysis, novelty, interpretation, transparency, and journal fit.
Editing should clarify your research—not substitute for resolving substantive research problems.
Before Resubmitting: Practical Checklist
- I have read the complete rejection letter and all attachments.
- I have checked the journal portal for missing reviewer or editor comments.
- I understand the likely reason for rejection.
- If the reason remains unclear, I have considered requesting clarification.
- I have checked the journal’s appeal policy before considering an appeal.
- I can identify objective evidence if I intend to contest the decision.
- I have reviewed every previous reviewer comment again.
- I have checked whether each revision actually resolves the underlying concern.
- I have reassessed the study’s methodology and limitations.
- I have checked whether the conclusions exceed the evidence.
- I have strengthened the paper’s contribution statement.
- I have selected the next journal based on genuine scope fit.
- I have reformatted the paper according to the new journal’s instructions.
- I have rewritten the cover letter for the new journal.
- I have checked references, figures, tables, supplementary files, and declarations.
- I have completed a final language and consistency review.
How Contentxprtz Can Help After a Rejection
After several revision rounds, authors can become so familiar with a manuscript that it becomes difficult to assess it independently.
A fresh review can be useful when the goal is not merely to correct grammar but to determine whether the paper communicates its research logic effectively.
Contentxprtz provides research paper editing support for researchers who want an independent review of manuscript clarity, academic language, consistency, organization, and presentation before their next submission.
Depending on the manuscript, useful support may include:
- Reviewing academic clarity and readability
- Checking whether arguments are expressed consistently
- Reviewing the manuscript against previous reviewer comments
- Improving the response-to-reviewers document
- Identifying ambiguous or potentially overstated statements
- Improving abstract, introduction, discussion, and conclusion alignment
- Checking terminology and language consistency
- Reviewing journal-specific presentation requirements
Researchers remain responsible for the study design, data, methodology, analysis, interpretations, references, claims, and final submission decisions. Professional editing should strengthen communication while preserving the author’s intellectual contribution.
For broader manuscript preparation, authors may also explore academic editing or journal publication support when those services match the specific publication problem.
Summary: My Paper Was Rejected After Major and Minor Revision—Is It Common?
Yes, a manuscript can be rejected after both major and minor revision rounds.
The sequence may feel unusual because minor revision often signals that the manuscript has made substantial progress. Nevertheless, formal acceptance has not occurred until the journal explicitly communicates it.
A late rejection can result from:
- An unresolved reviewer concern
- An editorial concern
- A methodological limitation
- A new issue identified during revision
- A new reviewer
- Conflicting reviewer recommendations
- A journal-fit or contribution problem
- A revision that did not fully resolve the underlying issue
If the journal provides no editor or reviewer explanation, first check the submission system and all accompanying files. If nothing is available, a polite request for clarification is reasonable.
Appeal only when there is a defensible basis—such as a material factual error, misunderstanding, conflict, or procedural issue—and after checking the journal’s formal appeal rules.
Otherwise, the revision work is not wasted. Use it to make the manuscript stronger and identify a journal whose scope and expectations are a better match.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Is it common for a paper to be rejected after major and minor revision?
Yes, it can happen. A manuscript that has received major revision and later minor revision has clearly progressed through the editorial process, but neither decision automatically guarantees final acceptance.
Reviewers and editors assess whether the revised manuscript has resolved the issues that prevented publication. If an important concern remains—or a new problem becomes apparent—the editor can still reject the manuscript.
The terminology also varies among journals. Therefore, interpret “major revision” and “minor revision” according to the wording in your journal’s decision letters rather than assuming they carry identical meanings everywhere.
2. My paper was in a journal for one major revision and one minor revision, then we revised according to the comments and suggestion, and finally got a rejection without any editor comments—is it common?
Yes, this situation is possible, although receiving no meaningful explanation can understandably be confusing.
First check whether reviewer or editorial comments are available separately in the journal’s submission system or attachments.
If there truly is no explanation, you can write a short professional email asking the editor or editorial office to clarify the main reason for rejection.
Do not immediately assume misconduct or unfair treatment. Establish what happened first. Once you understand the reason, you can decide more rationally whether to appeal, revise further, or submit to another journal.
3. Does a minor revision mean my paper is accepted?
Not necessarily.
A minor-revision decision is normally encouraging because the remaining concerns are expected to be relatively limited. In some journal workflows, minor revisions may be checked directly by the handling editor rather than being returned to external reviewers.
However, the paper is not formally accepted until the editor issues an acceptance decision.
Treat the minor revision as an important editorial round: respond carefully, document every change, avoid introducing unnecessary new problems, and make sure the revised manuscript remains internally consistent.
4. Why would reviewers ask for revisions if the journal might reject the paper anyway?
Because requesting revision usually means the manuscript has enough potential to justify further consideration—not necessarily that publication has already been promised.
Peer review is an evaluative and developmental process. The editor may want to know whether major concerns can be resolved before making a final decision.
Revision can therefore lead to different outcomes:
- Acceptance
- Another revision
- Rejection
- In some workflows, transfer to another journal
The important distinction is between an invitation to continue consideration and a formal commitment to publish.
5. Can an editor reject a paper when reviewers recommend acceptance?
Potentially, yes.
Reviewers normally make recommendations; the editor is responsible for the final editorial decision. Elsevier’s guidance states that the final accept-or-reject decision rests with the editor, who weighs reviewer opinions and may seek additional views.
The editor may also evaluate matters that extend beyond a reviewer’s individual recommendation.
Therefore, a positive reviewer recommendation is encouraging but should not be treated as the same thing as an acceptance letter.
6. Should I contact the editor when rejection has no comments?
Yes, a polite clarification request can be reasonable when neither the decision email nor the submission system contains an explanation.
Keep the message brief.
Explain that you appreciate the opportunity to revise the manuscript and would like to understand the principal remaining concern so that you can improve the paper appropriately.
Avoid demanding that the decision be reversed in your first message unless you already have a clear basis for a formal appeal.
7. Should I appeal after rejection following two rounds of revision?
Only when you have a substantive reason.
The number of revision rounds alone is not strong evidence that the rejection was incorrect.
A stronger appeal might show that:
- A critical factual statement in the decision is demonstrably incorrect
- A requested correction had already been made but was overlooked
- A key methodological point was misunderstood
- A serious procedural issue occurred
- There is evidence of a relevant conflict of interest
Elsevier’s appeal policy requires evidence-based reasoning and makes clear that reconsideration itself does not guarantee acceptance.
8. Is it better to appeal or submit the paper to another journal?
In many cases, submitting elsewhere is more productive unless the rejection clearly resulted from a correctable factual or procedural error.
Consider the likely benefit of an appeal against:
- The strength of your evidence
- The journal’s appeal policy
- The reason for rejection
- The availability of suitable alternative journals
- Whether the manuscript still requires substantive work
An appeal should normally challenge a defensible error, not merely express disagreement with editorial judgement.
9. Should I mention the previous rejection when submitting to a new journal?
Follow the new journal’s submission requirements.
You generally should not volunteer unnecessary editorial correspondence from another journal unless the new journal asks for relevant submission history, transferred peer review is being used, or another specific disclosure requirement applies.
However, you should use the intellectual value of the previous reviews. Strengthen the manuscript before the new submission so that weaknesses already identified do not simply reappear in another review cycle.
10. Can professional editing help after a paper has been rejected?
It can help when the remaining problems involve clarity, organization, academic language, consistency, response presentation, or communication of the research contribution.
Editing cannot legitimately repair inadequate data, create missing experiments, invent evidence, or make an unsuitable methodology scientifically valid.
If your paper has undergone several complicated review rounds, an independent research paper editing review may help identify places where your argument, response to reviewers, or manuscript presentation remains unclear.
The research itself, however, must remain the authors’ responsibility.
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
Receiving a rejection after one major revision and one minor revision is disappointing, but it is possible within normal scholarly publishing workflows.
A major revision generally means substantial concerns need to be resolved. A minor revision usually indicates that fewer or smaller issues remain. Neither should automatically be treated as final acceptance.
The editor must still determine whether the revised manuscript is suitable for publication.
If you answered all reviewer comments but received a rejection, revisit the distinction between responding to a comment and resolving the underlying concern. Review the entire editorial record, the methodology, the strength of your claims, the manuscript’s contribution, and its fit with the journal.
If no reason whatsoever was provided, asking respectfully for clarification is reasonable. If the explanation reveals a clear factual, technical, ethical, or procedural error, review the journal’s appeal policy and decide whether an evidence-based appeal is justified.
Otherwise, consider the substantial benefit you have already received from the revision process: your manuscript has probably been examined in greater depth than it was before its first submission. Preserve the improvements, address any remaining weaknesses, identify a more suitable journal, and approach the next submission as a new opportunity.
If the scientific content is strong but the manuscript needs an independent review for clarity, organization, academic language, or reviewer-response consistency, Contentxprtz research paper editing support can help you prepare a clearer, more polished version while preserving your authorship and intellectual responsibility.
“At Contentxprtz, we don’t just edit; we help ideas reach their fullest potential.”
