Can a Paper Get Rejected After a Major Revision?
Can a paper get rejected after a major revision? Yes. A major-revision decision means the journal is willing to reconsider the manuscript if the authors make substantial changes, but it is not a promise of acceptance. The revised paper may be returned to the original reviewers, sent to new reviewers, assessed by the editor alone, or evaluated through a combination of these routes. If the revision does not resolve the central scientific, methodological, reporting, ethical, or scope-related concerns, the manuscript can still be rejected.
This stage is stressful because authors have already invested heavily in the submission. A major revision may require new analyses, rewritten sections, additional justification, clearer methods, improved figures, changes to the discussion, stronger limitation statements, or a detailed response to reviewers. The decision letter can therefore feel almost like conditional acceptance. In practice, however, the editor is asking a narrower question: does the revised manuscript now satisfy the journal's standards strongly enough to continue toward publication?
For researchers, PhD scholars, and first-time authors, the safest approach is to treat a major revision as a fresh evaluation round rather than as a formality. Every reviewer point should be answered respectfully and specifically. Changes should be easy to locate. Where you disagree, the response should rely on evidence and reasoning rather than defensiveness. Where a requested experiment or analysis is genuinely impossible, explain why and show what you did instead to address the underlying concern.
This guide explains why papers can be rejected after major revision, how editors typically evaluate revised manuscripts, what warning signs matter, how to prepare a strong reviewer response, and what to do if the manuscript is rejected. It also shows where ethical academic editing, manuscript assessment, or journal publication support can help without replacing the author's responsibility for the research or the final response.
Quick Answer: Can a Paper Get Rejected After a Major Revision?
Yes. A journal can reject a paper after a major revision if the revised manuscript still does not meet the editor's or reviewers' expectations. Major revision means that the journal sees enough potential to invite a substantially improved version, but the manuscript remains under editorial evaluation.
Rejection may follow when key methodological problems remain unresolved, the response letter does not address reviewer comments adequately, new analyses create additional concerns, the revision moves the paper away from the journal's scope, or the editor concludes that the core claims are not sufficiently supported. A second round of review can also reveal issues that were not identified initially.
The most useful mindset is to treat every major-revision request as a structured opportunity to reduce uncertainty for the editor. Make the scientific changes first, then make those changes easy to verify in the manuscript and response letter.
Key Takeaways
- A major revision is encouraging, but it is not equivalent to conditional acceptance.
- Papers are most vulnerable when central reviewer concerns are only partially answered or dismissed without evidence.
- The editor makes the final publication decision, even when reviewers recommend acceptance or rejection.
- A point-by-point response should show exactly what changed, where it changed, and why.
- Authors may disagree with a reviewer, but the disagreement should be respectful, evidence-based, and responsive to the underlying concern.
- New problems discovered during revision can affect the second-round decision.
- If rejection occurs, the revision work can often be reused to strengthen a submission to another suitable journal.
What This Page Covers
- What a major-revision decision actually means
- Why a journal may reject a paper after revision
- How editors and reviewers assess the revised version
- How to prepare a persuasive point-by-point response
- Common mistakes that weaken a revision
- Practical examples from real publication situations
- What to do after rejection and when expert manuscript support may help
Table of Contents
Methodology and Academic Sources
This article reflects common peer-review and revision workflows described by major scholarly publishers and publication-ethics bodies. Journal procedures vary by discipline, publisher, article type, and editorial policy, so authors should always read the specific decision letter and target journal instructions before revising.
For additional guidance, authors can consult Elsevier author policies and guidelines, Springer Nature author resources, Taylor & Francis Author Services, and the Committee on Publication Ethics guidance. These sources reinforce the importance of transparent authorship, accurate reporting, ethical communication, and adherence to journal-specific requirements.
What Does a Major Revision Decision Actually Mean?
A major revision means the editor sees a potentially publishable paper but believes substantial problems must be resolved before a final decision can be made. It sits between outright rejection and minor revision. The journal is investing another editorial cycle in the manuscript, which is positive, but the burden is on the authors to demonstrate that the revised paper is materially stronger.
Major revisions commonly involve issues that can affect interpretation rather than surface-level presentation. Reviewers may question the study design, statistical choices, theoretical framing, sample description, robustness checks, missing literature, reporting clarity, generalisability, limitations, figures, tables, or the relationship between evidence and claims. In qualitative research, the concerns may involve sampling logic, coding transparency, reflexivity, or interpretation. In laboratory or clinical work, the requests may focus on controls, validation, additional experiments, or reporting standards.
The phrase itself is not standardised across all journals. One journal's major revision may resemble another journal's revise-and-resubmit. Some editors use it when they believe the manuscript is close but needs extensive rewriting; others use it only when the paper requires significant scientific changes. Therefore, the decision letter matters more than the label.
| Decision | Typical meaning | Author expectation | Acceptance guaranteed? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minor revision | Limited changes, clarification, formatting, or small corrections | Address all points carefully and transparently | No |
| Major revision | Substantive changes to analysis, methods, interpretation, structure, or reporting | Provide a strengthened manuscript and detailed response | No |
| Revise and resubmit | Journal may reconsider a substantially revised version, sometimes as a new submission | Rebuild weak areas and follow editorial instructions closely | No |
| Reject | Journal will not continue evaluating the current submission | Consider appeal only when justified or prepare another journal submission | Not applicable |
The table shows why authors should avoid reading “major revision” as “almost accepted.” The most productive interpretation is: the journal has identified a path forward, and your task is to follow that path convincingly.
Why Can a Paper Be Rejected After a Major Revision?
A paper can be rejected after major revision when the revised version does not adequately resolve the issues that matter to the editorial decision. Rejection is usually not caused by one imperfect sentence; it is more often linked to unresolved concerns about validity, relevance, reporting, or the strength of the response.
1. The central methodological concern remains unresolved
If reviewers question whether the design can answer the research question, a cosmetic rewrite will not be enough. For example, a reviewer may identify uncontrolled confounding, an underpowered analysis, inappropriate statistical assumptions, weak validation, or insufficient explanation of participant selection. If the revision does not correct the issue or transparently limit the claim, the editor may conclude that the paper cannot support publication.
2. The response letter says “done” without showing what changed
A reviewer response is an audit trail. Statements such as “Thank you, corrected” are weak when the requested change is substantive. A strong response explains the action, identifies the relevant manuscript location, and, when useful, quotes or summarises the new text. The reviewer should not need to hunt for evidence that the comment was addressed.
3. The authors disagree but do not engage with the concern
Authors do not have to accept every suggestion. However, a dismissive response can create doubt about whether the authors understood the criticism. Effective disagreement begins by acknowledging the concern, then explains the scientific reason for a different decision and shows any clarifying change made to prevent reader confusion.
4. The revision introduces new inconsistencies
Major revisions can create secondary errors. A new analysis may conflict with the abstract, a revised sample size may not be updated in a figure caption, terminology may change in one section but not another, or a new limitation may undermine an older conclusion. These inconsistencies can weaken reviewer confidence even when the main requested change was completed.
5. New reviewers identify additional problems
Some journals invite a different reviewer when an original reviewer is unavailable or when specialist expertise is needed. A new reviewer can reasonably focus on different aspects of the study. That can produce a second-round rejection even when the first reviewer was satisfied.
6. The paper no longer fits the journal strongly enough
Revision can reveal that the contribution is narrower, less novel, or less aligned with the journal's readership than originally thought. An editor may also reassess priority relative to other submissions. Scope and editorial significance remain legitimate considerations throughout the process.
7. Ethical or reporting concerns become clearer during revision
Questions about authorship, duplicate submission, undisclosed conflicts, data integrity, image manipulation, ethics approval, consent, or citation practices can alter the editorial outcome. Authors should respond transparently and follow the journal's publication-ethics process rather than trying to minimise such concerns.
How Editors and Reviewers Assess a Revised Manuscript
Editors usually compare three things: the original concerns, the revised manuscript, and the point-by-point response. The key question is whether the revision has reduced the reasons for doubt enough to justify acceptance or another round of review.
Reviewers often begin with their previous report. They look for a direct response to each numbered or distinct point. They may then examine the altered sections, recheck analyses, inspect new figures or supplementary files, and decide whether the change solves the original problem. If the authors rejected a request, reviewers assess the explanation and whether the manuscript has been clarified to reflect the limitation.
Editors consider the reviewers' updated recommendations but retain decision authority. One reviewer may recommend acceptance while another recommends rejection. The editor must interpret the importance of each concern, the journal's standards, and the manuscript's overall contribution. This is why an acceptance recommendation from one reviewer is encouraging but not decisive.
What a strong revision signals
- The authors understood the criticism rather than merely responding to its wording.
- The manuscript changed wherever the evidence justified a change.
- The response letter is specific, traceable, and professional.
- The authors distinguish between changes they can make and limitations they cannot eliminate.
- Claims are calibrated to the revised evidence.
- All manuscript components remain internally consistent after revision.
A professional research paper editing service can help with clarity and consistency at this stage, but it should not invent analyses, fabricate evidence, or decide scientific claims on behalf of the authors.
How to Respond to Major Revision Comments Step by Step
The safest approach is to separate the scientific revision from the communication task, then verify that they match. A polished response letter cannot compensate for an inadequate manuscript change, and a strong manuscript change can be overlooked if the response does not explain it clearly.
Step 1: Classify every comment
Create a response matrix with the reviewer comment, the underlying issue, the action required, the person responsible, and the manuscript location. Group comments into methods, analysis, interpretation, literature, presentation, ethics, and editorial requirements. This prevents smaller points from being lost among major technical requests.
Step 2: Identify comments that affect the core claim
Prioritise issues that could change validity or interpretation. If a reviewer questions an analysis, do not begin with grammar corrections. Resolve the scientific issue first because it may require changes across the abstract, results, figures, discussion, conclusion, and supplementary information.
Step 3: Make the manuscript changes before polishing the response
Revise the actual paper and record the location of each change. If line numbers will shift later, use section names or temporary markers until the manuscript is stable. After final formatting, update the response letter with accurate page and line references.
Step 4: Answer each point directly
A useful response often follows this pattern: thank the reviewer briefly; state whether you agree, partly agree, or respectfully disagree; explain the action; provide the rationale; identify the revised location; and mention any related changes elsewhere. Avoid excessive praise or defensive language.
Step 5: Handle disagreement scientifically
If a requested experiment is outside the study design, explain what question the reviewer is trying to resolve and how else you can address it. You might add a limitation, provide an existing analysis, explain why the requested analysis is invalid for the data, cite relevant methodology, or narrow the conclusion. The goal is not to “win” an argument; it is to show that the concern was taken seriously.
Step 6: Conduct a cross-manuscript consistency check
After major changes, compare the title, abstract, methods, results, discussion, conclusion, tables, figures, supplementary files, data availability statement, and response letter. Ensure the same numbers, terminology, sample descriptions, and claims appear consistently.
Step 7: Review tone and readability
Technical correctness matters, but so does readability. A response full of long, emotional, or ambiguous paragraphs can obscure good work. manuscript editing can be useful when authors need language support while preserving their original reasoning and decisions.
Common Mistakes That Increase Rejection Risk After Major Revision
Most preventable problems arise from incomplete response management rather than from the fact that the paper received major revision. The following mistakes are particularly risky.
- Skipping a reviewer point: Even a small point can signal carelessness if it is ignored.
- Changing the response but not the manuscript: Reviewers evaluate the revised paper, not the intentions described in the letter.
- Making an unsupported new claim: Additional analysis should strengthen evidence, not create new speculation.
- Overstating compliance: If you only partly addressed a request, say so clearly and explain why.
- Using defensive wording: Sarcasm, frustration, or attacks on reviewer competence can damage the professional exchange.
- Adding citations without reading them: References should be authentic, relevant, and represented accurately.
- Forgetting journal formatting changes: Editors may request revised highlights, declarations, figure files, reporting checklists, or supplementary documents.
- Missing contradictions created by revision: Re-run all internal consistency checks before resubmission.
Practical Examples: What Can Happen After a Major Revision?
Example 1: The analysis changes, but the conclusion does not
A first-time researcher is asked to replace an inappropriate statistical test. The corrected analysis weakens one result from clearly significant to uncertain. The authors update the table but leave the abstract and conclusion unchanged. On re-review, the reviewer notes that the central claim still overstates the evidence. The editor rejects the paper because the revision did not fully propagate through the manuscript.
Better approach: update every section affected by the new analysis, explain the change transparently, and recalibrate the conclusion. Ethical editing can help ensure the revised narrative matches the evidence, but the scientific interpretation remains the authors' responsibility.
Example 2: The author reasonably declines an extra experiment
A PhD scholar receives a request for an experiment that requires a sample type no longer available. Instead of simply saying “not possible,” the author explains the logistical limitation, adds a robustness analysis using existing data, narrows the claim, and expands the limitations section. The reviewer accepts the reasoning because the response addresses the underlying uncertainty even without the requested experiment.
Better approach: when a request cannot be fulfilled, respond to the reason behind the request. A well-supported alternative can be more persuasive than a bare refusal.
Example 3: A new reviewer raises a scope concern
An interdisciplinary manuscript receives major revision from two reviewers. One reviewer is unavailable for the second round, so the editor asks a new specialist to assess the revision. The new reviewer agrees that the methods are improved but argues that the contribution is too narrow for the journal. The editor rejects the paper while encouraging submission elsewhere.
Better approach: recognise that second-round review can introduce new judgments. The authors can use the strengthened manuscript and detailed revision history to target a journal with a closer scope match.
Example 4: The response letter becomes the weak link
An ESL author makes most requested changes correctly but submits a response letter with vague statements such as “fixed as suggested.” The reviewer cannot easily verify which sections changed and assumes several concerns were overlooked. The paper receives another major revision rather than acceptance.
Better approach: map every response to a location and explain the rationale. scholarly proofreading or reviewer-response support can improve clarity without changing the author's scientific position.
Major Revision and Reviewer Response Checklist
Before resubmitting, use a final checklist that tests both scientific completeness and editorial traceability.
Scientific revision
- Every major methodological or analytical concern has been resolved, justified, or explicitly limited.
- New analyses are reproducible and correctly reported.
- Claims match the revised evidence.
- New limitations are stated where needed.
- Figures, tables, supplementary files, and data statements match the text.
Response letter
- Every reviewer and editor comment is reproduced or clearly paraphrased.
- Each response states what was changed and where.
- Disagreements are respectful and evidence-based.
- Page and line references are accurate in the final version.
- No comment is silently ignored.
Submission package
- Tracked and clean versions are supplied if requested.
- Cover letter, declarations, reporting checklists, highlights, and supplementary files are updated.
- Author names, affiliations, funding, conflicts, ethics information, and data availability details are current.
- File names and formats match journal instructions.
What Should You Do If the Paper Is Rejected After Major Revision?
A rejection after major revision is disappointing, but it does not automatically mean the revision work was wasted. The manuscript is often stronger than it was at first submission, and the reviewer feedback can help authors decide whether to appeal, revise further, or submit to another journal.
Read the final decision for the actual reason
Separate scientific criticism from editorial fit. If rejection is based on unresolved validity concerns, those problems should be addressed before another submission. If the editor mainly cites scope or priority, the revised manuscript may already be suitable for a more aligned journal.
Consider an appeal only when there is a clear basis
An appeal is most credible when the decision appears to rest on a factual misunderstanding, a demonstrable procedural issue, or a reviewer claim that can be rebutted with clear evidence. An appeal should not simply repeat disagreement with the outcome. Follow the journal's formal appeal policy and maintain a professional tone.
Prepare the manuscript for a new journal carefully
Do not submit the same files unchanged. Review the new journal's aims, scope, article type, length, formatting, reporting requirements, reference style, and declarations. Remove old journal-specific wording and revise the cover letter. Preserve useful improvements from the previous peer-review cycle.
Authors who want an independent readiness check can use manuscript assessment or publication support to identify clarity, consistency, formatting, and response gaps before the next submission. Such support cannot guarantee acceptance because editorial outcomes depend on research quality, fit, reviewer judgment, and journal priorities.
Ethical Academic Editing and Author Responsibility
Professional editing can help make a major revision easier to evaluate, but it should support rather than replace authorship. Authors remain responsible for the research question, data, methods, analysis, claims, citations, ethics approvals, disclosures, and final submission.
Appropriate editing may improve grammar, academic tone, structure, consistency, reviewer-response clarity, and alignment between the manuscript and the response letter. More substantive support can flag unclear logic or places where evidence appears disconnected from claims. However, an editor should not fabricate data, invent references, conceal misconduct, or misrepresent work as having been performed when it was not.
Publication ethics also require transparency about authorship and contributions. If extensive external assistance is used, authors should check the target journal's disclosure expectations. The COPE guidance library is a useful reference for ethical publication processes.
How Contentxprtz Can Help With a Major Revision
When a paper has received major revision, the most relevant support is usually focused rather than broad. Contentxprtz can assist with research paper editing, reviewer-response clarity, manuscript consistency, language polishing, and publication-readiness checks.
Support is especially useful when the scientific changes are complete but the authors are concerned that the response is difficult to follow, revisions are inconsistent across sections, or language issues may obscure the logic. The aim is to make the author's work clearer and easier to evaluate, not to promise acceptance or substitute for scholarly judgment.
Summary: Can a Paper Get Rejected After a Major Revision?
Yes. A paper can be rejected after a major revision because the manuscript remains under editorial review until a final acceptance decision is issued. Major revision is a positive sign that the journal sees potential, but it is not a contractual promise.
The strongest revisions resolve substantive concerns, explain every response clearly, maintain consistency across the manuscript, and calibrate claims to the evidence. Authors can disagree with reviewers when necessary, but the disagreement should be reasoned, respectful, and responsive to the underlying scientific concern.
If rejection occurs, use the decision letter to determine whether the manuscript needs deeper scientific work, a better journal fit, or a clearer submission package. Much of the revision effort can still strengthen the next submission.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a paper get rejected after a major revision?
Yes. A major revision means the journal is inviting you to submit a substantially improved version for further evaluation, not guaranteeing acceptance. The revised paper may return to reviewers or be assessed by the editor. Rejection can occur if central methodological, analytical, reporting, ethical, or scope concerns remain unresolved. It can also happen when new issues emerge during re-review. Treat the decision as an opportunity to make the paper convincingly stronger and to document every change in a point-by-point response.
Is a major revision a good sign?
Generally, yes. It shows that the editor did not reject the manuscript outright and believes there is a plausible path to a publishable version. However, the significance of the label varies between journals. Some use major revision for relatively manageable changes; others reserve it for manuscripts requiring substantial new analysis or rewriting. The most reliable indicator is the actual decision letter, especially the editor's summary of what must be resolved before the paper can move forward.
What are the main reasons for rejection after revision?
Common reasons include unresolved methodological concerns, insufficient additional analysis, weak responses to reviewer comments, overstated conclusions, new inconsistencies introduced during revision, ethical or reporting concerns, and a continuing mismatch with the journal's scope or priority. Rejection may also occur when a new reviewer identifies a major issue not raised previously. Authors reduce risk by addressing the substance behind each comment and checking that all manuscript sections reflect the revised evidence consistently.
Can reviewers recommend acceptance but the editor still reject the paper?
Yes. Reviewers advise; editors decide. An editor can reject a manuscript even when one or more reviewers recommend acceptance if the editor identifies unresolved concerns, gives greater weight to another review, concludes that the paper does not fit the journal sufficiently, or determines that the contribution does not meet editorial standards. The reverse can also occur: an editor may invite another revision despite a negative reviewer recommendation. Authors should therefore respond to the entire decision letter rather than focusing only on reviewer recommendation labels.
What if I disagree with a reviewer during major revision?
You may disagree, but do so respectfully and scientifically. Start by acknowledging the concern, then explain why you believe the suggested change would be inappropriate, unnecessary, or impossible. Support the reasoning with data, methods, literature, or journal guidance where relevant. Where possible, make a clarifying change even if you do not follow the exact request—for example, add a limitation, narrow a claim, or explain the method more clearly. A reasoned disagreement is usually stronger than either automatic compliance or a dismissive refusal.
Do I need to answer every reviewer comment?
Yes, every substantive reviewer and editor comment should receive a visible response. Even when several comments overlap, it is better to answer each one and cross-reference related changes than to leave a point unaddressed. Your response should state what changed, where it changed, and why. If no change was made, explain the reason. This point-by-point structure helps reviewers verify the revision efficiently and reduces the chance that a completed change is mistaken for an omission.
Can a journal ask for another major revision?
Yes. A manuscript can receive more than one major-revision decision. This may happen when the first revision solves some concerns but not all, when new analyses create additional questions, or when a second reviewer identifies issues that require substantial work. A repeat major revision is not necessarily a negative sign, but authors should examine whether the requested changes are feasible and whether the paper's scope and evidence can realistically meet the journal's expectations.
Should I appeal a rejection after major revision?
Appeal only when the journal permits it and there is a clear, evidence-based reason. Strong grounds may include a factual misunderstanding that materially affected the decision, a procedural problem, or a reviewer criticism that can be decisively addressed from information already in the manuscript or revision record. An appeal is less persuasive when it simply argues that the reviewers were too harsh. Read the journal's appeal policy, keep the letter concise and professional, and explain exactly what you believe should be reconsidered.
Can I submit the revised paper to another journal after rejection?
Yes, once the first journal has formally rejected the manuscript and no active appeal or editorial process remains, you can prepare it for another suitable journal. Recheck the new journal's scope, article type, author instructions, formatting, word limits, reference style, declarations, and reporting requirements. Keep the useful scientific improvements made during the previous revision, but remove journal-specific references and adapt the cover letter. Do not assume that the previous reviewers' concerns will disappear at a new journal; unresolved scientific issues should be fixed before resubmission.
Can professional editing improve a major-revision resubmission?
Professional editing can improve clarity, grammar, structure, response-letter organisation, and consistency between the manuscript and reviewer responses. It is most useful when the authors have already decided the scientific changes but want help communicating them precisely. Editing cannot guarantee acceptance and should not replace author responsibility for data, analysis, claims, citations, or ethical decisions. Contentxprtz can support research paper editing and publication readiness while preserving the author's original ideas and scholarly responsibility.
Conclusion: Treat Major Revision as a New Decision Round
A major revision is valuable because it gives authors a defined route to improve the paper, but that route still ends in an editorial decision. The manuscript can be rejected if critical concerns remain, if the response does not demonstrate adequate revision, or if the editor ultimately decides the paper is not suitable for the journal.
Self-review may be enough when the comments are clear, the authors have the technical expertise to complete the changes, and the revised manuscript is internally consistent. Expert-assisted support becomes useful when the revision is complex, the response letter is difficult to structure, language obscures the reasoning, or the submission needs an independent quality check. In every case, academic integrity and author responsibility remain central.
If you are preparing a difficult resubmission, Contentxprtz can help with ethical research paper editing and reviewer-response support focused on clarity, consistency, and publication readiness.
At Contentxprtz, we don’t just edit; we help ideas reach their fullest potential.
