My Paper Was in a Journal for One Major Revision and One Minor Revision, Then We Revised According to the Comments and Suggestion. We Finally Got a Rejection Without Any Editor Comments? Is It Common? Shall I Request More Detailed Reason?
For many PhD scholars, few academic moments feel more discouraging than this: “My paper was in a journal for one major revision and one minor revision, then we revised according to the comments and suggestion. We finally got a rejection without any editor comments? Is it common? Shall I request more detailed reason?” This question reflects a real emotional and professional challenge in academic publishing. You invested time, responded carefully to reviewers, revised your manuscript, checked every comment, and waited with hope. Then, instead of acceptance, the journal sent a rejection, sometimes with little or no explanation. Naturally, you may feel confused, disappointed, or even unfairly treated.
This experience is more common than many early-career researchers realize. A major revision does not guarantee acceptance. A minor revision also does not guarantee acceptance, although it often signals that the manuscript is close. In many journals, “revise and resubmit” means the editor is willing to reconsider the paper, not that the article has been accepted. After revision, the editor may re-evaluate the manuscript, return it to previous reviewers, invite new reviewers, or decide that the paper still does not meet the journal’s threshold. Elsevier’s author guidance confirms that rejection can occur even after peer review, and its Article Transfer Service exists partly because manuscripts may need a more suitable journal after rejection. (www.elsevier.com)
Academic publishing has also become more competitive. Clarivate’s 2025 Journal Citation Reports cover more than 22,000 journals across 111 countries and 254 research categories, which shows the scale and complexity of journal evaluation today. (Clarivate) Meanwhile, open access publishing has expanded rapidly. STM data show that the share of global articles, reviews, and conference papers available through gold open access increased from 14% in 2014 to 40% in 2024. (STM Association) As publishing routes expand, researchers face more choices, more quality checks, and more pressure to select the right journal.
For PhD students, the stress is even higher. Publication may affect thesis submission, viva preparation, scholarships, academic promotions, postdoctoral applications, and institutional deadlines. Many scholars also face rising costs, article processing charges, language barriers, reviewer delays, and unclear editorial communication. Therefore, rejection after revision feels not only academic but personal. However, a rejection after major or minor revision is not the end of the research journey. It is a signal that the manuscript needs a strategic decision: clarify, revise, appeal only when justified, or submit to a better-matched journal.
At ContentXprtz, we support researchers, PhD scholars, universities, and professionals across 110+ countries with ethical academic editing, proofreading, manuscript refinement, dissertation support, and publication assistance. This article explains why post-revision rejection happens, when you should request detailed reasons, when an appeal may be appropriate, and how to prepare your paper for the next submission with confidence. The content follows the user’s requested brief for an educational, SEO-ready article for ContentXprtz.
Why a Journal Can Reject a Paper After Major and Minor Revision
A journal can reject a revised manuscript for several reasons. The most important point is simple: revision means reconsideration, not acceptance. A major revision usually means the paper has potential, but the reviewers or editor see substantial concerns. These may involve theory, methodology, novelty, data analysis, interpretation, structure, writing clarity, ethical compliance, or journal fit. A minor revision usually means the paper needs smaller changes, but the final decision still belongs to the editor.
Springer Nature explains that manuscripts may be rejected for technical or editorial reasons. Technical reasons may include weak analysis, missing evidence, poor methodology, or insufficient revision. Editorial reasons may include poor journal fit, limited novelty, or weak alignment with the journal’s readership. (Springer Nature) This distinction matters because a paper can be technically improved and still be rejected if the editor concludes that it does not fit the journal’s direction.
Sometimes, the editor sends the revised paper to the same reviewers. In other cases, the editor may send it to a new reviewer, especially when the first reviewers disagree or one reviewer becomes unavailable. A new reviewer may identify issues that were not raised earlier. This can frustrate authors, but it happens in peer review. It does not always mean your revision was poor. It may mean the manuscript faced a fresh evaluation at a later stage.
In some cases, the revised manuscript answers the reviewer comments but does not improve the paper enough. For example, an author may add citations but not strengthen the theoretical argument. Another author may respond to statistical comments but leave the research design unclear. A third author may revise the language but fail to address the journal’s novelty expectations. Therefore, journals assess both the response letter and the revised manuscript.
Is It Common to Receive Rejection Without Detailed Editor Comments?
Yes, it can happen. It is not ideal, but it is not rare. Some journals provide detailed decision letters after every round. Others provide short editorial decisions, especially when the editor believes the reviewer reports already explain the concerns. However, a rejection without any meaningful editor comments can feel incomplete, especially after major and minor revision.
Editors handle many manuscripts, reviewers, deadlines, and ethical checks. They may decide that the manuscript cannot proceed and send a brief decision. In some cases, the decision letter may include only a standard template. This can happen when the journal’s system has limited decision categories, when the editor considers the decision final, or when reviewers recommend rejection but provide minimal new comments.
However, from an author’s perspective, a complete lack of explanation is frustrating. Authors need feedback to improve the manuscript and choose the next journal. Elsevier’s researcher guidance encourages authors not to take rejection personally and to use available feedback to improve the manuscript and find a more suitable journal. (Researcher Academy) When no feedback appears, authors may reasonably request clarification.
Still, scholars should request more detail with care. The goal should not be to challenge the editor emotionally. Instead, the goal should be to understand whether the rejection was based on reviewer concerns, editorial fit, novelty, scope, methodology, ethics, or journal priority.
Should You Request a More Detailed Reason From the Editor?
Yes, you may request a more detailed reason, especially if the rejection came after one major revision and one minor revision. However, your request should remain brief, respectful, and non-confrontational. You are not asking the editor to reverse the decision. You are asking for clarification that can help you improve the manuscript.
A polite request is appropriate when:
The decision letter gives no clear reason.
The journal previously asked for major and minor revisions.
You addressed all reviewer comments in a detailed response letter.
The editor did not attach reviewer reports.
The decision seems inconsistent with the previous revision outcome.
You need clarity before resubmitting elsewhere.
However, you should avoid asking for a long explanation as a right. Editors are not always required to provide detailed post-decision coaching. Many journals consider rejection decisions final unless there is a clear procedural issue, factual error, or ethical concern.
Taylor & Francis states that genuine appeals require strong evidence or new information in response to editor and reviewer comments. It also notes that journals follow COPE-related guidance on appeals and complaints. (Author Services) Therefore, requesting clarification is different from appealing. Clarification is a professional inquiry. Appeal is a formal challenge.
How to Write a Professional Request for Detailed Reasons
Your email should be short, courteous, and focused. Do not accuse the editor. Do not argue that reviewers “wasted your time.” Do not demand acceptance. Instead, show respect for the editorial process and ask for guidance that helps you revise responsibly.
You may write:
Subject: Request for Clarification on Editorial Decision for Manuscript ID [Manuscript ID]
Dear Professor/Dr. [Editor’s Name],
Thank you for considering our revised manuscript, titled “[Manuscript Title],” for publication in [Journal Name]. We appreciate the time invested by the editorial team and reviewers during the major and minor revision rounds.
We have received the final rejection decision. However, the decision letter did not include specific editor comments or reviewer feedback. Since we revised the manuscript carefully according to the previous comments, we would be grateful if you could kindly clarify the main reason for the rejection, if possible.
This clarification would help us improve the manuscript before submitting it to another suitable journal. We fully respect the editorial decision and appreciate any brief guidance you can provide.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Affiliation]
[Manuscript ID]
This message does three things well. First, it respects the editor’s authority. Second, it asks for clarification, not reconsideration. Third, it shows that you want to improve the paper ethically.
When Should You Appeal Instead of Asking for Clarification?
An appeal is different from a clarification request. You should appeal only when you have strong evidence that the decision involved a misunderstanding, factual error, procedural problem, or clear reviewer misinterpretation. You should not appeal simply because the rejection feels disappointing.
Elsevier’s researcher guidance states that appeals are within an author’s rights, but most appeals are not successful unless invited. (Researcher Academy) Elsevier’s rejection webinar materials also note that manuscript improvements alone are not enough for an appeal. A strong appeal must clarify disagreement with the decision, address concerns respectfully, and provide concise support for the paper. (Researcher Academy)
You may consider an appeal if:
The reviewer made a factual mistake about your data.
The reviewer claimed an analysis was missing, but it was included.
The decision ignored a completed revision.
The journal attached the wrong reviewer report.
A reviewer requested something unethical or impossible.
The editor misunderstood the manuscript type.
You should not appeal if:
You only disagree with the rejection.
The journal says the decision is final.
The paper has clear unresolved weaknesses.
The manuscript is outside the journal scope.
You have no new evidence.
In most cases, a careful resubmission to a better-matched journal is more productive than appeal.
Why Rejection After Revision Hurts PhD Scholars So Deeply
For a PhD scholar, a journal decision rarely feels like an ordinary email. It often carries months or years of effort. The paper may come from a thesis chapter, funded project, conference presentation, or doctoral milestone. Therefore, rejection after revision can feel like a broken promise.
However, it is important to separate emotional disappointment from academic strategy. A rejection does not mean your research has no value. It means that one journal, at one point in time, chose not to publish it. That decision may reflect methodological concerns, journal fit, editorial priorities, reviewer disagreement, or space limitations.
Many strong papers face rejection before publication. The key is not to rush the next submission. Instead, scholars should diagnose the decision carefully. Ask: Did the editor question novelty? Did reviewers ask for deeper theory? Did the analysis remain weak? Did the manuscript lack a clear contribution? Did the journal scope fit the article? Did the response letter fully explain every change?
This reflective process improves publication readiness. It also prevents repeated rejection.
What You Should Do Immediately After Rejection
First, pause. Do not reply on the same day if you feel angry or hurt. Academic publishing rewards professionalism. A rushed email may damage your relationship with the journal.
Second, read the decision letter several times. Identify whether the rejection includes editor comments, reviewer reports, journal transfer suggestions, or appeal instructions.
Third, compare the final decision with earlier reviewer comments. If the final rejection includes no comments, review the previous major and minor revision reports. There may be unresolved signals hidden in them.
Fourth, save all documents: original manuscript, revised manuscript, response letter, tracked changes file, reviewer reports, decision letters, supplementary files, ethics approvals, and data availability statements.
Fifth, prepare a revision audit. This means checking whether your final manuscript truly addressed every reviewer concern. Many authors respond politely but revise lightly. Editors can notice that gap.
If you need expert support, ContentXprtz offers PhD thesis help and manuscript refinement for researchers who want a structured review before resubmission. Our academic editors examine argument flow, journal fit, language clarity, reviewer response quality, and publication readiness.
How to Conduct a Post-Rejection Manuscript Audit
A post-rejection audit helps you move from disappointment to action. It should examine five areas.
First, assess journal fit. Read the journal aims, scope, recent articles, article types, and methodological preferences. If your paper does not match the journal’s current direction, resubmission elsewhere may work better.
Second, assess novelty. Many rejections happen because the paper does not clearly explain what it adds. Your introduction should show the research gap, problem, contribution, and relevance.
Third, assess methodology. Check whether your sample, data collection, measurement, analysis, and ethics are clear. Weak methodology often leads to rejection even after revision.
Fourth, assess the response letter. A strong response letter should address every comment, explain changes with page numbers, and remain respectful. It should not simply say “done.”
Fifth, assess language and structure. Poor academic writing can weaken strong research. Long sentences, unclear claims, inconsistent terminology, and weak transitions reduce editorial confidence.
ContentXprtz provides academic editing services that help authors improve structure, clarity, coherence, and reviewer-response quality before the next submission.
How to Choose the Next Journal After Rejection
Choosing the next journal requires strategy, not panic. Many authors submit quickly to another journal without revising properly. This often leads to another rejection.
Start by listing five suitable journals. Check scope, indexing, impact metrics, acceptance pattern, article type, open access policy, article processing charges, publication timeline, and recent published papers. Clarivate’s Journal Citation Reports can help researchers compare journals using multiple indicators rather than relying only on one metric. (Clarivate)
Next, compare your manuscript with articles published in the last two years. Ask whether your topic, methods, theory, and contribution fit. If your manuscript feels too narrow, choose a specialized journal. If it has strong global relevance, consider a broader journal.
Also consider journal ethics. Avoid predatory journals, fake impact factors, and unrealistic acceptance promises. Serious journals follow transparent peer review, publication ethics, and editorial standards.
If you need help preparing a journal selection strategy, ContentXprtz offers research paper writing support and publication guidance for students, researchers, and professionals.
How to Revise Before Submitting Elsewhere
Before submitting to a new journal, revise the manuscript as if it is entering a new peer review cycle. Do not simply change the journal name and submit.
Update the title, abstract, keywords, introduction, and contribution statement. Align the paper with the new journal’s aims and scope. Revise the literature review if the target journal publishes different theoretical conversations. Strengthen the methodology section. Improve tables, figures, and supplementary files. Check references and formatting.
Most importantly, use previous reviewer comments as free expert advice. Even if the final journal rejected the paper, the earlier comments remain valuable. Treat them as a roadmap.
A revised manuscript should show:
A sharper research gap.
A stronger contribution.
A clearer methodology.
A more persuasive discussion.
A better conclusion.
Cleaner academic language.
Complete journal formatting.
Ethical and transparent reporting.
Researchers working on books, edited volumes, or scholarly monographs can also explore ContentXprtz’s book authors writing services for structured academic content development.
The Role of Professional Academic Editing After Rejection
Professional academic editing can help after rejection, but it must remain ethical. An editor should not invent data, manipulate results, rewrite the study dishonestly, or guarantee acceptance. Instead, a qualified academic editor improves clarity, structure, consistency, argumentation, and publication readiness.
After post-revision rejection, academic editing is useful because authors are often too close to their own work. A fresh expert can identify unclear claims, weak transitions, overstatement, missing citations, and inconsistent terminology.
ContentXprtz supports researchers through ethical editing, proofreading, manuscript refinement, response letter review, and publication strategy. We do not replace the researcher’s intellectual contribution. Instead, we help scholars communicate their work clearly, professionally, and confidently.
For universities, research teams, and professional organizations, ContentXprtz also provides corporate writing services that support research communication, reports, white papers, academic documents, and institutional publications.
Common Editorial Reasons Behind Rejection After Revision
Although each journal is different, post-revision rejection often results from recurring issues.
The revision did not fully address the main concern. Authors may correct surface-level points but miss deeper conceptual issues.
The paper lacks novelty. Reviewers may accept the technical quality but still question contribution.
The methodology remains weak. Data, sample size, validity, reliability, coding, model fit, or robustness may remain unclear.
The manuscript does not fit the journal. The paper may be publishable elsewhere but not suitable for that journal.
Reviewers disagree. One reviewer may support acceptance while another recommends rejection.
A new reviewer raises new concerns. This can happen in later rounds.
The response letter lacks precision. Editors need to see exactly how you revised the paper.
The discussion overclaims findings. Journals reject papers that make claims beyond the evidence.
The article competes with stronger submissions. Editors must prioritize papers that best serve their readership.
Understanding these reasons helps you respond wisely.
What Not to Do After Rejection Without Comments
Do not send an angry email. Do not accuse the editor of bias without evidence. Do not post the decision letter publicly. Do not submit the same manuscript immediately to another journal without revision. Do not ignore earlier reviewer comments. Do not pay a questionable publication service that promises guaranteed acceptance.
Also, do not assume that a lack of comments means the journal acted unethically. Sometimes the process is imperfect but not malicious. Your best response is professional, strategic, and evidence-based.
Practical Checklist Before Requesting Clarification
Before you email the editor, ask yourself:
Did the decision letter truly include no comments?
Were reviewer reports attached separately?
Did the journal portal contain hidden files?
Did the editor mention “scope,” “priority,” or “novelty”?
Did the journal provide transfer options?
Did the author guidelines mention appeals?
Did you address every prior comment?
Do you want clarification or reversal?
If your goal is clarity, send a brief request. If your goal is reversal, prepare a formal appeal only with strong evidence.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Is rejection after one major revision and one minor revision common in journals?
Yes, rejection after one major revision and one minor revision can happen, although authors often find it surprising. A major revision usually means the journal sees potential in the manuscript. However, it does not mean the paper has crossed the acceptance line. A minor revision often suggests that the manuscript is closer to acceptance, but the final decision still belongs to the editor. The editor may consider reviewer recommendations, journal priorities, novelty, methodological strength, ethical clarity, and overall fit. Therefore, the situation behind the focus keyphrase, “My paper was in a journal for one major revision and one minor revision, then we revised according to the comments and suggestion. We finally got a rejection without any editor comments? Is it common? Shall I request more detailed reason?”, is painful but possible.
In many cases, rejection after revision occurs because the editor believes the manuscript still has unresolved weaknesses. Sometimes reviewers change their recommendation after seeing the revised version. Sometimes a new reviewer joins the process and raises new concerns. Sometimes the editor sees that the paper has improved but still does not match the journal’s contribution threshold.
The best response is not panic. First, check the decision letter and journal portal for attached reports. Second, review all previous comments. Third, write a polite clarification request if no reason was provided. Fourth, revise the paper carefully before sending it elsewhere. A rejection after revision is a setback, but it can still lead to publication in a better-matched journal.
2. Does a minor revision mean my paper will definitely be accepted?
No, a minor revision does not guarantee acceptance. It is usually a positive sign, but it remains part of peer review. A minor revision often means the manuscript needs limited changes, such as formatting updates, clearer explanations, additional citations, minor statistical clarifications, improved tables, or language polishing. However, the editor must still approve the final version.
Sometimes, authors treat minor revision as a formality. That can be risky. Even minor comments require careful attention. If the author responds briefly, misses a point, or changes the manuscript in a way that creates new problems, the editor may hesitate. Also, a minor revision may return to reviewers. If a reviewer believes the revised manuscript still has unresolved issues, the paper may face another revision or rejection.
Authors should approach minor revision with the same professionalism as major revision. Prepare a detailed response letter. Mention where each change appears in the manuscript. Use page numbers, line numbers, or section names. Maintain a respectful tone even if a comment seems small.
A minor revision is encouraging, but it is not acceptance. Acceptance comes only when the journal issues a formal acceptance letter. Until then, the manuscript remains under evaluation. Therefore, authors should revise thoroughly, check all files, and avoid assuming the outcome.
3. Should I request a detailed reason if the editor rejected my paper without comments?
Yes, you can request a detailed reason, especially when the paper went through major and minor revision rounds. Your request should be polite and professional. You should not frame the email as a complaint. Instead, explain that you revised the manuscript according to the previous comments and would appreciate brief clarification to improve the paper before submitting elsewhere.
A good request may say that you fully respect the editorial decision. It may also ask whether the rejection was due to scope, novelty, methodology, reviewer concerns, or editorial priority. This helps the editor respond briefly without feeling pressured.
However, you should understand that editors may not always provide additional comments. Some journals treat decision letters as final. Others may have limited time or policy restrictions. Still, a respectful clarification request rarely harms your academic reputation. It shows maturity and commitment to improving the manuscript.
Do not ask the editor to “justify” the decision. Do not suggest that the process was unfair unless you have evidence. Do not write when you feel emotional. Wait one or two days, then send a concise email. If the editor replies, use the feedback constructively. If the editor does not reply, revise based on existing comments and submit to a more suitable journal.
4. Can I appeal a rejection after revision?
Yes, you can appeal a rejection after revision, but only when you have strong grounds. An appeal is not a second chance to persuade the editor simply because you are disappointed. It is a formal request for reconsideration based on evidence. Many appeals fail because authors argue emotionally rather than academically.
A strong appeal may be appropriate if a reviewer misunderstood a key method, claimed something was missing when it was present, made a factual error, ignored the revised manuscript, or recommended rejection based on an issue outside the journal’s criteria. You may also appeal if the journal sent the wrong reviewer report or if there was a procedural problem.
However, do not appeal because the paper received a minor revision earlier. Do not appeal only because you spent months revising. Do not appeal if the journal clearly states that decisions are final. Do not appeal if the manuscript still has unresolved weaknesses.
If you appeal, write a structured letter. Thank the editor. State the reason for appeal. Provide evidence. Refer to manuscript sections, tables, data, and prior responses. Keep the tone respectful. Avoid emotional language. If the appeal fails, move forward. Often, submitting to a better-fit journal saves more time than a prolonged appeal.
5. What should I do if reviewers asked for changes, I made them, and the paper was still rejected?
If reviewers asked for changes and you made them, but the paper was still rejected, start by checking whether you made changes deeply enough. Many authors respond to comments technically but not conceptually. For example, a reviewer may ask for stronger theoretical grounding. The author may add three citations, but the argument may still remain weak. A reviewer may ask for methodological clarification. The author may add one paragraph, but the research design may still lack transparency.
Create a revision audit table. List each reviewer comment. Next to it, write what you changed, where you changed it, and whether the change improved the manuscript’s core quality. Then read the manuscript as if you are a new reviewer. Ask whether the paper now has a clear gap, strong contribution, sound method, logical analysis, and meaningful discussion.
If no final comments were provided, use the earlier review reports as your guide. Strengthen the paper beyond the requested changes. Do not assume that compliance equals acceptance. Peer review evaluates the whole manuscript, not only the response letter.
After the audit, choose a suitable journal. Adapt the manuscript to that journal’s aims and scope. Revise the cover letter. Update formatting. Then submit with confidence.
6. How do I know whether the rejection was because of poor journal fit?
Poor journal fit is one of the most common reasons behind rejection, including rejection after revision. A paper may be strong, ethical, and well-written, but still unsuitable for a specific journal. Journal fit depends on topic, theory, method, audience, contribution type, article format, and editorial priorities.
To assess fit, read the journal’s aims and scope. Then read at least ten articles published in the last two years. Compare their topics, methods, theoretical depth, data style, article structure, and contribution statements with your manuscript. If your paper feels different from most published articles, journal fit may be weak.
Also check whether the journal usually publishes your research design. Some journals prefer quantitative studies. Others prioritize qualitative inquiry, mixed methods, reviews, conceptual papers, clinical trials, case studies, or policy research. If your paper does not match their pattern, it may face difficulty.
Look at the decision letter. Words like “priority,” “scope,” “readership,” “fit,” “limited contribution,” or “not suitable for this journal” often indicate editorial fit issues. If the final decision lacks comments, the earlier reports may still contain clues.
When fit seems weak, do not keep fighting the same journal. Improve the manuscript and select a journal where your contribution naturally belongs.
7. Should I submit the same revised manuscript immediately to another journal?
No, you should not submit the same manuscript immediately unless you have completed a careful post-rejection revision. Quick resubmission may feel efficient, but it often repeats the same problems. The new journal may identify the same weaknesses, especially if they relate to novelty, methodology, structure, or writing clarity.
Before resubmission, revise the manuscript for the new journal. Update the title, abstract, keywords, introduction, literature review, and contribution statement. Check whether the discussion speaks to the new journal’s audience. Follow the author guidelines exactly. Adjust references, formatting, word count, tables, figures, data statements, ethics statements, and supplementary files.
You should also prepare a clean manuscript, not one filled with tracked changes from the previous journal. However, keep previous reviewer comments for your own improvement. They can help you produce a stronger version.
Most importantly, write a new cover letter. Do not mention the previous rejection unless the new journal requires disclosure. Present the paper on its own merits. Explain the research problem, contribution, method, and relevance to the journal.
A revised and strategically aligned manuscript has a better chance than a rushed resubmission.
8. Can professional academic editing improve my chances after rejection?
Yes, professional academic editing can improve clarity, structure, readability, and presentation. However, ethical editing cannot guarantee acceptance. A reputable academic editing service helps you communicate your research better. It does not manipulate results, fabricate data, or promise publication in a specific journal.
After rejection, academic editing can help in several ways. An editor can identify unclear sentences, weak transitions, inconsistent terminology, poor paragraph flow, and formatting problems. A subject-aware academic reviewer can also identify gaps in argumentation, literature positioning, contribution clarity, and reviewer-response strategy.
For PhD scholars, editing support can be especially useful because thesis-derived manuscripts often need restructuring. A thesis chapter may contain extensive background, but a journal article needs a focused argument. An editor can help condense, reorganize, and refine the paper for publication.
ContentXprtz provides ethical academic editing, proofreading, manuscript refinement, and publication support for scholars worldwide. Our role is to help researchers express their work with precision, not to replace their intellectual voice. Good editing improves readability and professionalism. Strong research, careful revision, and suitable journal selection remain essential.
9. How long should I wait before contacting the editor?
You can usually contact the editor within a few days after receiving the rejection, especially if the decision letter lacks comments. However, do not email immediately if you feel upset. Wait until you can write calmly and professionally.
A good timeline is two to five working days after the decision. This gives you time to read the decision letter, check the submission portal, review attachments, and discuss with co-authors. If you have co-authors, do not contact the editor without agreement. One corresponding author should send the message.
Your email should be short. Mention the manuscript ID, title, decision date, and reason for writing. Ask whether the editor can kindly clarify the main reason for rejection. State that you respect the decision and want to improve the manuscript for future submission.
If the editor replies, thank them. If they do not reply within two to three weeks, move forward. Do not send repeated messages. Journals receive many emails, and excessive follow-up may appear unprofessional.
The goal is not to force a response. The goal is to obtain helpful clarification if possible.
10. How can I emotionally recover from rejection after revision?
Rejection after revision can feel deeply discouraging, especially when you invested months in the process. The first step is to recognize that your reaction is normal. You may feel frustrated, embarrassed, angry, or tired. Many researchers experience these emotions. Academic publishing is demanding, and rejection can affect confidence.
However, do not define your research identity by one decision. A journal rejection is not a judgment of your worth as a scholar. It is a decision about one manuscript in one editorial context. Strong papers often go through multiple journals before publication.
Give yourself a short pause. Then return to the manuscript with a structured plan. Discuss the decision with supervisors, mentors, co-authors, or professional editors. Convert the rejection into tasks: clarify the reason, audit the manuscript, revise the weak sections, choose a better journal, and prepare a stronger submission.
Also remember that peer review is part of scholarly development. Each round can strengthen your thinking, writing, and resilience. The goal is not only publication. The goal is to become a clearer, more rigorous, and more confident researcher.
With the right strategy, this rejection can become the turning point that leads to a stronger published paper.
Expert Guidance for PhD Scholars: Clarify, Revise, Resubmit
The most effective response to post-revision rejection is strategic calm. First, clarify if needed. Second, revise deeply. Third, choose the next journal wisely. Fourth, improve the manuscript beyond the previous comments. Fifth, protect your academic confidence.
The focus keyphrase, “My paper was in a journal for one major revision and one minor revision, then we revised according to the comments and suggestion. We finally got a rejection without any editor comments? Is it common? Shall I request more detailed reason?”, captures a situation that many scholars quietly face. The answer is yes, it can be common. Yes, you may request a more detailed reason. But you should do it professionally, without assuming unfairness.
You should also treat the rejection as data. It tells you that the paper may need a stronger fit, clearer contribution, better explanation, deeper revision, or more polished presentation. With a careful plan, the paper can still move toward publication.
A Practical Resubmission Framework for Your Manuscript
Use this framework before sending your paper to another journal.
Step 1: Diagnose the rejection. Identify whether the issue was novelty, methodology, fit, writing, ethics, analysis, or reviewer disagreement.
Step 2: Request clarification if needed. Send a polite email only if the decision lacks useful detail.
Step 3: Rebuild the introduction. Make the research problem, gap, and contribution clear.
Step 4: Strengthen the methodology. Add transparency, justification, and reporting detail.
Step 5: Improve the discussion. Connect findings to theory, practice, limitations, and future research.
Step 6: Revise the response logic. Even if you submit elsewhere, use reviewer comments to strengthen the manuscript.
Step 7: Select a better journal. Match the paper with the journal’s scope, audience, methods, and recent publications.
Step 8: Edit professionally. Improve grammar, clarity, structure, formatting, and academic tone.
Step 9: Prepare a strong cover letter. Explain why the manuscript fits the new journal.
Step 10: Submit with patience. Track timelines, but avoid excessive follow-up.
Why ContentXprtz Is a Trusted Academic Partner After Rejection
ContentXprtz understands the emotional and technical challenges behind journal rejection. Since 2010, we have supported students, PhD scholars, researchers, universities, and professionals across more than 110 countries. Our services include academic editing, proofreading, manuscript refinement, dissertation support, research paper assistance, and publication guidance.
We work with researchers who need clarity after rejection, confidence before resubmission, and expert support during thesis-to-publication conversion. Our team helps improve structure, flow, argumentation, formatting, language quality, response letters, and journal readiness.
What makes our approach different is ethical academic partnership. We do not make unrealistic promises. We do not guarantee acceptance. We do not compromise research integrity. Instead, we help scholars strengthen their work so that it communicates clearly and meets professional academic standards.
Whether you need PhD and academic services, writing and publishing services, student writing support, book author support, or corporate research writing, ContentXprtz provides structured, reliable, and human-centered guidance.
Final Takeaway: Rejection After Revision Is Painful, but It Is Manageable
A rejection after one major revision and one minor revision can feel unfair, especially when the journal provides no editor comments. However, it can happen in legitimate peer review. A revision invitation is not a promise of acceptance. It is an opportunity for reconsideration.
You may request a more detailed reason if the decision letter gives no useful explanation. Keep your message polite, brief, and professional. Do not argue unless you have strong evidence for a formal appeal. In most cases, your best path is to revise the manuscript carefully, use all prior feedback, improve journal fit, and submit to a more suitable publication.
For PhD scholars and academic researchers, the right support can make this stage less overwhelming. ContentXprtz helps researchers transform rejection into a structured revision plan, improve manuscript quality, and prepare stronger submissions for credible journals.
Explore ContentXprtz’s PhD Assistance Services to receive expert, ethical, and publication-focused support for your manuscript, thesis, or research paper.
At ContentXprtz, we don’t just edit, we help your ideas reach their fullest potential.
