What Happens If Reviewer Asks for Changes Again? Definition, Purpose, and Examples

By Dr. Aanya Mehta
Research Writer & Professional Business Communicator

You revised your manuscript carefully, answered every reviewer comment, uploaded the new version, and expected the next email to contain an acceptance decision. Instead, the editor sends another message asking for more changes.

So, what happens if a reviewer asks for changes again? In most cases, it means your manuscript is still under active consideration and the editor or reviewers believe additional revisions are needed before a final decision can be made. A second revision request is not the same as rejection, and it does not necessarily mean that your first revision was inadequate.

Academic peer review is often iterative. A reviewer may want clarification after reading your revised explanation, may identify an issue created or revealed by the new material, or may decide that an earlier concern has only been partly resolved. The editor may also request changes independently of the reviewers.

Second-round comments can be particularly stressful for PhD scholars, early-career researchers, and authors submitting to a journal for the first time. You may wonder whether you should simply agree with everything, whether another round of revisions means your paper is unlikely to be accepted, or whether a reviewer is allowed to introduce completely new concerns.

The most useful approach is to treat the new decision letter as a fresh academic task rather than as evidence that something has gone wrong. Read every comment closely, compare it with the previous review, determine exactly what has been requested, and prepare another transparent point-by-point response.

Publisher guidance supports this structured approach. PLOS, for example, instructs authors submitting revised manuscripts to address the specific points made by reviewers and editors and explain the changes made to the manuscript. Elsevier similarly recommends professional, objective, evidence-based responses and notes that authors can respectfully disagree with reviewer suggestions when they provide a clear justification.

The goal is therefore not to make endless changes simply to satisfy a reviewer. It is to determine which concerns genuinely improve the manuscript, make justified revisions, explain decisions clearly, and help the editor determine whether the paper now meets the journal’s expectations.

Quick Answer: What Happens If a Reviewer Asks for Changes Again?

If a reviewer asks for changes again after you have already revised your manuscript, the journal normally gives you another opportunity to respond. Depending on the editor’s decision, this may be described as a second revision, further revision, minor revision, major revision, revise and resubmit, or another round of peer review.

You should review the new comments one by one, identify which previous concerns remain unresolved, complete justified changes, and prepare an updated response letter explaining exactly what you changed.

A request for another revision usually means that no final acceptance decision has yet been made. It can be encouraging because the manuscript remains in the editorial process, but it should not be interpreted as a guarantee of eventual acceptance. Editors ultimately decide whether a manuscript is accepted, rejected, or requires further revision. Elsevier’s reviewer guidance explicitly notes that the editor makes the final decision and may request another revised paper before reaching that decision.

Most importantly, do not respond defensively or change the manuscript mechanically. Determine what each comment is trying to resolve and answer it academically.

Key Takeaways

• A second request for revisions is not automatically a rejection; your manuscript may still be under active editorial consideration.
• Reviewers can ask for clarification or further changes when they believe an earlier concern remains unresolved.
• New reviewer comments sometimes arise because revisions introduce new information or make previously unnoticed issues more visible.
• Respond to every substantive comment individually, including comments with which you disagree.
• You do not necessarily have to accept every suggestion, but disagreement should be respectful, reasoned, and supported where appropriate.
• Keep the manuscript and response letter synchronized so the editor can easily verify every change.
• A further revision improves your chances only when the changes genuinely strengthen the manuscript; it never guarantees publication.

What This Page Covers

This guide explains:

• What a second or subsequent reviewer revision request means
• Why reviewers sometimes ask for additional changes
• Whether repeated revision requests are normal
• How to respond to second-round reviewer comments
• How to handle repeated, conflicting, or new comments
• Practical examples of strong reviewer responses
• When professional academic editing or reviewer-response support may be useful

Table of Contents

1. What Does It Mean When a Reviewer Asks for Changes Again?
2. Why Would Reviewers Request Another Revision?
3. Is a Second Revision a Good or Bad Sign?
4. What Happens During the Second Round of Peer Review?
5. How to Respond When a Reviewer Requests Changes Again
6. What If the Reviewer Repeats the Same Comment?
7. What If the Reviewer Introduces a New Concern?
8. Do You Have to Accept Every Reviewer Suggestion?
9. How to Handle Conflicting Reviewer Comments
10. Major Revision vs Minor Revision in a Later Round
11. Practical Reviewer-Response Examples
12. Common Mistakes During a Second Revision
13. Revision Checklist
14. How Contentxprtz Can Support a Revised Manuscript
15. Summary
16. Frequently Asked Questions
17. About the Author
18. Conclusion

Methodology and Academic Sources

The guidance in this article reflects established scholarly publishing practices and publicly available guidance from academic publishers and journals, including Elsevier and PLOS.

Exact procedures differ between journals. Some editors send every revised manuscript back to the original reviewers, while others evaluate relatively minor amendments themselves. File requirements, deadlines, response-letter formats, and revision terminology also vary.

For that reason, always treat the editor’s decision letter and your target journal’s author instructions as the primary requirements for your submission.

PLOS, for example, currently requests a response to reviewers, a marked-up revised manuscript, and a clean manuscript when authors submit a revision. Such requirements should not automatically be assumed for every journal.

What Does It Mean When a Reviewer Asks for Changes Again?

A reviewer asking for changes again means that, after examining your revised manuscript and response, the reviewer or editor believes that one or more issues still require attention before a final editorial decision can be made.

Imagine the publication process as a sequence:

Original manuscript → Peer review → Revision request → Revised manuscript → Further review → Additional revision or final decision

The second revision may involve something relatively small, such as:

• Clarifying a sentence
• Correcting terminology
• Revising a figure
• Adding methodological detail
• Expanding a limitation
• Correcting a citation
• Explaining an analytical decision

Alternatively, the reviewer may raise a more substantive concern involving:

• Research design
• Statistical analysis
• Interpretation of results
• Theoretical framing
• Literature coverage
• Generalisability
• Methodological justification
• Conclusions that extend beyond the evidence

The important point is that another request for changes is an editorial stage, not an outcome by itself.

Your next task is to determine what remains unresolved.

Why Would Reviewers Request Another Revision?

There are several legitimate reasons why another revision can occur.

1. The First Response Did Not Fully Resolve the Concern

You may have changed the manuscript but addressed only part of what the reviewer requested.

For example:

First reviewer comment:
Please explain how participants were selected and discuss the potential for selection bias.

First revision:
You add a paragraph describing participant recruitment.

The reviewer may return with:

Second-round comment:
The recruitment process is now clearer, but the potential effect of selection bias on the findings has not been discussed.

The reviewer is not necessarily introducing a new demand. The original concern had two components, and only one was addressed.

2. Your Revision Creates a New Question

Academic manuscripts are interconnected. Changing one section can affect another.

Suppose a reviewer asks you to add a subgroup analysis. You perform the analysis and insert new results.

The reviewer might then ask:

• How was the subgroup defined?
• Was the analysis pre-specified?
• Were multiple comparisons considered?
• Does the discussion now overstate the subgroup finding?

The new question arises because new material has entered the manuscript.

3. Your Explanation Is Still Ambiguous

Sometimes authors have technically answered a comment without making the manuscript clearer.

A reviewer may therefore say:

“Thank you for the clarification. However, this explanation should also be incorporated into the manuscript.”

This distinction matters. A response letter communicates with reviewers and editors, but information necessary for future readers generally needs to appear in the manuscript itself.

4. The Reviewer Disagrees With Your Response

Authors are allowed to disagree professionally with reviewers, but reviewers may remain unconvinced.

The discussion may continue for another round until the editor determines whether:

• Your justification is adequate
• The reviewer’s request is necessary
• A compromise is appropriate
• Further revision is required

Elsevier advises authors who disagree with reviewer comments to respond professionally and support their position with evidence rather than dismissing the criticism.

5. Another Reviewer or the Editor Identifies a Different Issue

The editor considers the manuscript as a whole.

Even if Reviewer 1 is satisfied, Reviewer 2 may still have concerns. The editor may also raise an issue that was not emphasized during the first round.

6. The Journal Needs Technical Changes

Not every revision is an intellectual criticism.

The journal may request corrections to:

• Formatting
• References
• Figures
• Supplementary files
• Ethics statements
• Data availability statements
• Author information
• Reporting requirements

These requests should be distinguished from substantive peer-review concerns.

Is a Second Revision a Good or Bad Sign?

A second revision is best understood as a continued evaluation, rather than automatically being labelled good or bad.

It can be encouraging because the editor has not ended consideration of the manuscript. However, it is not equivalent to conditional acceptance unless the editor explicitly says so.

The strength of the signal depends on the decision letter.

For example:

Relatively encouraging

“The manuscript has improved substantially. Please address the remaining minor points before we make a final decision.”

More uncertain

“Several important concerns remain unresolved. We invite the authors to submit a substantially revised version.”

Potentially difficult

“The reviewers continue to have serious concerns regarding the validity of the analysis.”

Therefore, pay closer attention to the substance of the editor’s decision than to the number of revision rounds.

What Happens During the Second Round of Peer Review?

After you resubmit your revised manuscript, several outcomes are possible.

Possible next step	What it usually means
Editor evaluates the revision	The editor may decide whether the changes are sufficient without another external review
Manuscript returns to original reviewers	Reviewers assess whether their earlier concerns were addressed
Manuscript goes to another reviewer	The editor may seek additional expertise or another opinion
Minor revisions requested	Remaining concerns are generally more limited
Major revisions requested again	Important issues remain unresolved or new substantive issues have emerged
Acceptance	The editor considers the manuscript suitable for publication, subject to any production requirements
Rejection	The editor decides that the manuscript does not meet the journal’s requirements

The exact process depends on the journal.

Elsevier’s guidance for reviewers makes clear that editors may request revised manuscripts and that the editor retains responsibility for the final decision.

How to Respond When a Reviewer Asks for Changes Again

The strongest second-round response is systematic. Do not simply reopen the manuscript and start making edits randomly.

Step 1: Read the Editor’s Decision Before the Reviewer Comments

The editor’s letter is your most important document.

Look for language indicating:

• Whether the manuscript remains under consideration
• Whether the revision is major or minor
• Which issues the editor considers essential
• Whether certain reviewer comments receive special emphasis
• Your resubmission deadline
• Any required files or formatting

If the editor identifies three priority issues while reviewers provide twenty smaller comments, those three priorities deserve particular attention.

Step 2: Compare the New Comments With the Previous Round

Create a working document with columns such as:

New comment	Related to previous comment?	Action required	Manuscript location	Status
Clarify sampling method	Yes	Expand Methods	Methods, Section 2.3	Completed
Explain unexpected result	New	Add interpretation	Discussion	In progress
Correct figure label	New	Revise figure	Figure 2	Completed

This prevents you from overlooking repeated concerns.

Step 3: Identify What the Reviewer Actually Wants

Reviewer language may be indirect.

For example:

“The rationale for limiting the study to urban hospitals remains unclear.”

The reviewer may not be asking you to collect more data. The actual request may be to justify the sampling boundary.

Translate each comment into an actionable question:

Why was this population chosen, and what does that choice mean for interpretation?

Now you know what you need to answer.

Step 4: Make the Manuscript Change First

Where a revision is justified, improve the manuscript before composing the final response.

This approach keeps your response letter accurate.

Avoid promising a change and then forgetting to implement it.

Step 5: Respond Point by Point

Elsevier recommends listing reviewer comments and addressing them separately so that editors and reviewers can see how each issue was handled. PLOS similarly instructs authors to address specific reviewer and editor comments and list the changes made.

A useful structure is:

Reviewer comment:
[Comment]

Response:
Thank you for this observation. We agree that the previous version did not sufficiently explain the sampling rationale. We have therefore expanded the Methods section to clarify the inclusion criteria and study setting.

Change in manuscript:
“We included…”

Location:
Page X, Lines X–X.

Adapt the location format to your journal and manuscript.

Step 6: Explain Rather Than Merely Announce

Weak:

Response: Corrected.

Stronger:

Response: Thank you for identifying this ambiguity. We revised the final paragraph of the Introduction to distinguish the primary hypothesis from the exploratory analysis.

The second version saves reviewers from searching through the entire manuscript.

Step 7: Recheck the Entire Manuscript

A second revision can create inconsistencies.

If you change the sample size in Methods, check whether the same number appears in:

• Abstract
• Results
• Tables
• Figures
• Discussion
• Supplementary files

If you change terminology, check that the old terminology has not survived elsewhere.

Step 8: Prepare the Required Versions

Follow the journal’s instructions exactly.

PLOS ONE, for example, asks authors submitting revisions to provide a reviewer-response document, a marked-up version showing changes, and a clean manuscript. Other journals may use different requirements.

What If the Reviewer Repeats the Same Comment?

If a reviewer repeats a comment, first assume that your previous response did not communicate the solution clearly enough.

Do not begin with:

“We already answered this.”

Instead ask:

• Did we misunderstand the original concern?
• Did we answer the reviewer but fail to change the manuscript?
• Was our explanation too brief?
• Is the requested information difficult to find?
• Does the reviewer disagree with our underlying reasoning?
• Did we make a change that does not actually solve the problem?

A productive response might say:

Reviewer comment:
The manuscript still does not provide adequate justification for excluding participants over 65.

Response:
Thank you for returning to this point. We recognise that our previous revision described the exclusion criterion but did not adequately explain its methodological rationale. We have now expanded this explanation in the Methods section and acknowledged the resulting limitation in the Discussion.

That response shows that you understood why the issue returned.

What If the Reviewer Introduces a Completely New Concern?

A new concern during a later review round can be frustrating, particularly if it could seemingly have been raised earlier.

However, new comments are not automatically inappropriate.

They may emerge because:

• Your revisions introduced new information
• A previous change affected another part of the manuscript
• The issue became apparent only after clarification
• The editor asked the reviewer to reconsider a particular aspect
• Another reviewer identified the concern

First determine whether the new request is scientifically relevant and reasonable.

If it is manageable, address it.

If it requires an extensive new study beyond the manuscript’s realistic scope, explain that carefully.

For example:

Reviewer comment:
The authors should conduct a 12-month follow-up to establish whether the intervention has a sustained effect.

Possible response:
We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion and agree that longitudinal follow-up would provide valuable evidence regarding the durability of the intervention. However, the present study was designed as a cross-sectional evaluation and no longitudinal follow-up data were collected. We therefore cannot conduct the proposed analysis within the current dataset. To avoid overstating the findings, we have revised the Discussion and explicitly identified longitudinal follow-up as an important direction for future research.

The purpose is not to “win” an argument. It is to show the editor that you understand the scientific concern and have dealt with it responsibly.

Do You Have to Accept Every Reviewer Suggestion?

No. Authors are generally not expected to make a change that is scientifically inappropriate simply because a reviewer suggested it.

However, declining a recommendation requires more than writing:

“We disagree.”

A good response normally contains four elements:

1. Recognition — show that you understand the concern.
2. Position — state respectfully that you have not made the proposed change.
3. Reason — explain the methodological, theoretical, empirical, or practical basis.
4. Alternative action — where appropriate, improve the manuscript in another way.

Elsevier specifically advises that authors can disagree with reviewer comments, provided their response remains polite, objective, and supported by reasoning or evidence.

Example

Reviewer comment:
Please remove the qualitative interview findings because the survey already answers the research question.

Response:
We appreciate this suggestion. We have retained the interview findings because the study was designed as a mixed-methods investigation in which the qualitative component addresses participants’ explanations for the quantitative patterns. Removing these findings would therefore prevent us from answering the explanatory component of the research question. However, we agree that the relationship between the two components was not sufficiently clear. We have revised the Methods and Discussion sections to explain the integration of the quantitative and qualitative findings more explicitly.

This response disagrees without becoming defensive.

How to Handle Conflicting Reviewer Comments

Two reviewers sometimes request opposite changes.

For example:

Reviewer 1:
The literature review should include considerably more background.

Reviewer 2:
The literature review is too long and should be shortened.

You cannot satisfy both literally.

Instead:

1. Identify the academic issue behind each comment.
2. Find a defensible middle position.
3. Tell the editor exactly what you did.
4. Explain why.

You might respond:

“We appreciate both reviewers’ comments regarding the literature review. To address the concern about insufficient theoretical context without substantially increasing its length, we have added recent literature directly relevant to the central framework while removing background material that was peripheral to the research question.”

Elsevier advises authors facing differing reviewer opinions to address each perspective and explain the reasoning for the approach selected.

When comments genuinely cannot be reconciled, the editor’s guidance should carry particular weight because the editor is responsible for the journal’s decision.

Major Revision vs Minor Revision in a Later Round

The label attached to the revision gives useful context, but terminology varies between journals.

Minor Revision

A later minor revision may involve:

• Clarification
• Limited textual corrections
• Additional explanation
• Small analytical changes
• Reference corrections
• Figure or table improvements

It may indicate that major concerns have been substantially resolved.

However, minor revision is still not the same as acceptance.

Major Revision

A second major revision may indicate that:

• Significant concerns remain
• The first revision was incomplete
• New substantive questions emerged
• Reviewers remain unconvinced
• Further analysis is required

Do not interpret another major revision solely as failure.

Instead, read the editor’s explanation carefully. The content of the decision letter is more informative than the label alone.

Practical Example 1: A Reviewer Says the Original Concern Is Still Unresolved

Situation

A researcher studying workplace stress was asked to explain why demographic variables were included as controls.

First Revision

The researcher added:

“Age and gender were controlled for in the regression analysis.”

Second-Round Comment

“The authors have stated which variables were controlled, but the rationale for including these variables remains unclear.”

Problem

The author described what was done, not why it was done.

Improved Response

“Thank you for clarifying this concern. We agree that our previous revision identified the control variables without explaining their conceptual justification. We have now revised the Methods section to state the rationale for including age and gender and added supporting references where appropriate.”

Why This Works

It acknowledges the gap without arguing that the reviewer “missed” the earlier revision.

Practical Example 2: The Reviewer Requests New Analysis

Situation

A manuscript compares educational outcomes between two teaching approaches.

After revision, a reviewer asks whether baseline performance might explain the observed difference.

Reviewer Comment

“Please adjust the analysis for students’ baseline assessment scores.”

Appropriate Approach

The researchers first determine whether baseline data exist and whether the requested analysis is methodologically appropriate.

If so, they conduct the analysis and report the result transparently.

Example Response

“Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have repeated the analysis with baseline assessment score included as a covariate. The adjusted findings are now presented in Table 4 and discussed in the Results section. We have also modified the Discussion to ensure that our interpretation reflects the adjusted analysis.”

Why This Works

The answer explains:

• What was done
• Where it was done
• How interpretation changed

Practical Example 3: The Requested Study Is Not Possible

Situation

A health researcher completes a retrospective study using existing hospital records.

During the second round, a reviewer requests interviews with patients to explore their experiences.

Problem

The proposed interviews would constitute a substantial new research component, potentially involving new recruitment, data collection, ethics considerations, and study design.

Improved Response

“Thank you for this thoughtful recommendation. We agree that patient interviews could provide important insight into the experiences underlying the observed patterns. However, the present study was designed as a retrospective analysis of existing records and did not include prospective participant recruitment or qualitative data collection. We have therefore not added interviews to the current study. Instead, we have revised the Discussion to acknowledge this limitation and identify qualitative investigation as an important direction for subsequent research.”

Why This Works

The authors neither dismiss the reviewer nor pretend that an impractical request can be fulfilled.

They define the study boundary transparently.

Practical Example 4: The Reviewer Misunderstands the Manuscript

Sometimes a reviewer comment appears factually incorrect because the requested information is already present.

Do not automatically assume the reviewer was careless.

A reviewer misunderstanding something may indicate that the manuscript does not communicate it clearly enough.

Reviewer Comment

“The manuscript does not explain the primary outcome.”

Author’s Initial Reaction

“But it is already on page 8.”

Better Response

“Thank you for highlighting the need for greater clarity. The primary outcome was described in the Methods section, but we recognise that its presentation may not have been sufficiently prominent. We have therefore revised the paragraph to identify the primary outcome explicitly and have also clarified it in the Abstract.”

Practical Lesson

If an expert reviewer cannot easily locate or understand something, a future reader may experience the same problem.

Reviewer confusion can therefore reveal a communication issue even when the relevant information technically exists.

Weak vs Improved Responses to Second-Round Comments

Weak response	Problem	Improved approach
“Already addressed.”	Sounds dismissive and gives no location	Explain how it was addressed and make the information easier to locate
“Done.”	Reviewer cannot evaluate the change efficiently	State what changed and where
“We disagree.”	No academic justification	Explain the reasoning and provide evidence where relevant
“The reviewer is incorrect.”	Confrontational wording	Explain the methodological or conceptual distinction objectively
“This is beyond the scope.”	May sound like avoidance	Explain why it exceeds the study design and what alternative revision was made
“We have changed everything as suggested.”	May indicate mechanical compliance	Explain substantive changes individually
“No change required.”	Provides no justification	State why the current approach remains appropriate

The practical principle is simple: make your reasoning visible.

What Should a Second-Round Response Letter Look Like?

Your response letter should make reviewing the manuscript easier.

A useful structure is:

Opening

Thank the editor and reviewers briefly and professionally.

Editor Comments

Address the editor’s requests first when the decision letter contains separate editorial instructions.

Reviewer 1

Reproduce or clearly identify each comment, followed immediately by your response.

Reviewer 2

Repeat the same structure.

Manuscript Locations

Provide page, section, paragraph, or line references according to journal requirements.

Changes You Declined

Explain these fully rather than hiding them.

Elsevier recommends a clear list of comments and responses and advises authors to indicate where manuscript changes were made.

Common Mistakes When a Reviewer Requests Changes Again

Mistake 1: Becoming Defensive

A second request can feel personal after substantial revision work.

Avoid phrases such as:

• “As we already explained…”
• “The reviewer has again failed to understand…”
• “This comment is unnecessary.”
• “Obviously…”

Replace emotional language with evidence and explanation.

Mistake 2: Assuming Every Request Must Be Accepted

Academic revision is not an obedience exercise.

If a requested change would weaken the manuscript, distort the methodology, introduce unsupported claims, or require data that do not exist, explain why you have not made it.

Mistake 3: Changing the Response Letter but Not the Manuscript

If information is necessary for readers, it normally needs to appear in the manuscript rather than existing only in correspondence with reviewers.

Mistake 4: Changing the Manuscript but Not Explaining the Change

Reviewers should not have to search for everything themselves.

State what changed and where.

Mistake 5: Addressing Only the Easy Comments

A missing comma may take thirty seconds to fix. A methodological concern may require several days of thought.

Do not allow easy corrections to distract you from the comments most likely to determine the editorial decision.

Mistake 6: Treating Every New Comment as Unfair

Some new questions genuinely emerge because of your revisions.

Evaluate their academic merit before deciding how to respond.

Mistake 7: Introducing Unsupported Claims to Satisfy the Reviewer

Never invent:

• Data
• Analyses
• References
• Participant information
• Ethical approvals
• Results

If evidence is unavailable, say so and revise the manuscript’s scope or limitations where appropriate.

Mistake 8: Overclaiming After Additional Analysis

New analyses can change the interpretation of your study.

Recheck the Abstract, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion after making substantial revisions.

Mistake 9: Forgetting the Editor

Authors sometimes become so focused on reviewer dialogue that they overlook the person making the final decision.

Your response should help the editor understand that concerns have been considered rigorously.

Mistake 10: Resubmitting Without a Final Consistency Check

Repeated revisions increase the risk of:

• Duplicate paragraphs
• Incorrect numbering
• Obsolete figures
• Inconsistent terminology
• References cited but missing from the bibliography
• Old data remaining in the Abstract
• Track Changes errors

Perform a complete final read.

Second-Round Revision Checklist

Before resubmitting, confirm:

• I have read the editor’s decision letter separately from the reviewer reports.
• I understand which issues are essential to the next editorial decision.
• Every substantive reviewer comment has a response.
• I compared second-round comments with the previous review.
• Repeated comments have been addressed more clearly than before.
• All promised manuscript changes have actually been implemented.
• Each important change is identified clearly in the response letter.
• I used respectful, professional language even where I disagreed.
• Every disagreement has a clear academic justification.
• New analyses have been reflected consistently throughout the manuscript.
• I have not invented data, references, findings, or methodological information.
• Limitations are acknowledged where requests cannot reasonably be fulfilled.
• Tables, figures, supplementary files, and references remain consistent.
• I followed the target journal’s revision instructions.
• I prepared clean or marked-up manuscript versions if required.
• All co-authors have had an appropriate opportunity to review substantial changes.
• The revised manuscript still represents the authors’ actual research and conclusions.

When Should You Contact the Editor?

Most reviewer comments can be handled in the revision letter.

However, contacting the editor may be appropriate when:

• Two reviewer requirements are genuinely impossible to reconcile
• A requested analysis would fundamentally change the study
• The reviewer requests unavailable data as if those data already existed
• A comment raises an ethical or confidentiality issue
• A revision requires considerably more time than the deadline permits
• You cannot determine what an essential editorial instruction means

Keep correspondence concise and professional.

Do not contact the editor merely because a comment is difficult. Contact them when clarification is genuinely necessary to proceed responsibly.

How Contentxprtz Can Help With Repeated Reviewer Revisions

A second or third revision can become difficult because authors must simultaneously evaluate academic criticism, revise the manuscript, maintain consistency, and prepare a precise response letter.

Contentxprtz provides academic editing and research-support services for researchers, PhD scholars, students, authors, professionals, and institutions internationally. Its academic communication support includes manuscript editing, research paper editing, reviewer-response support, language editing, and publication assistance.

For a manuscript facing another round of reviewer comments, appropriate support may include:

• Reviewing whether every reviewer comment has been answered
• Improving the clarity and professionalism of reviewer responses
• Checking alignment between the response letter and revised manuscript
• Editing revised sections for academic language and coherence
• Identifying inconsistencies introduced during multiple revision rounds
• Improving communication when an author needs to disagree respectfully
• Checking whether important clarifications belong in the manuscript rather than only in the response letter

Researchers who need detailed language and structural support for a journal manuscript can explore Contentxprtz Research Paper Editing Service.

Broader academic editing support may also be appropriate when repeated revisions have created inconsistencies across a manuscript.

Professional editing should support the researcher’s communication rather than replace the researcher’s intellectual contribution. Authors remain responsible for their study, data, methodology, analyses, interpretations, citations, responses to reviewers, and final submission. University and journal policies regarding permissible editorial assistance should also be followed.

Summary: What Happens If a Reviewer Asks for Changes Again?

If a reviewer asks for changes again, your manuscript usually remains in the peer-review or editorial evaluation process. The reviewer may believe that a previous concern has not been fully resolved, may require clarification about a revision, or may have identified another issue after examining the revised manuscript.

The appropriate response is to:

1. Read the editor’s decision carefully.
2. Compare the new comments with the earlier review.
3. Determine what each reviewer is actually asking.
4. Revise the manuscript where the change is justified.
5. Respond to every substantive comment individually.
6. Explain clearly where changes have been made.
7. Provide respectful academic reasoning when you disagree.
8. Check the entire manuscript for consistency.
9. Follow the journal’s resubmission requirements.
10. Avoid treating another revision as either guaranteed acceptance or inevitable rejection.

A well-managed second revision demonstrates scholarly care. Your objective is not simply to eliminate reviewer comments. It is to make the manuscript clearer, stronger, more transparent, and easier for the editor to evaluate.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What happens if a reviewer asks for changes again?

If a reviewer asks for changes again, you will normally need to prepare another revised manuscript and response, provided the editor has invited further revision.

The new decision letter should tell you whether the journal expects a major revision, minor revision, or another form of resubmission. Read the editor’s instructions carefully because the second-round process may differ from the first.

Do not assume that a repeat revision means your paper will be rejected. It usually means the evaluation is continuing. Equally, do not assume acceptance is guaranteed.

Review each new comment, determine whether it relates to an earlier issue, make justified revisions, and explain your response point by point.

2. Is it normal for reviewers to ask for a second revision?

Yes. Multiple rounds of revision can occur during scholarly peer review.

The first revision may resolve most concerns while leaving several points that require clarification. New questions can also emerge when a reviewer examines additional analyses, explanations, figures, or literature introduced during the first revision.

The number of revision rounds alone does not tell you the eventual outcome.

Concentrate on the editor’s decision and the substance of the remaining concerns.

3. Does a second revision mean my paper is likely to be accepted?

Not necessarily.

A second revision means that the journal is providing another opportunity to address concerns, but only the editor’s eventual acceptance decision confirms publication.

A decision letter saying that only a few minor points remain may be encouraging. A second major revision involving fundamental methodological issues indicates greater uncertainty.

Treat the revision opportunity positively while continuing to evaluate every request rigorously.

4. How should I respond if a reviewer repeats the same comment?

Re-examine your original response before assuming that the reviewer ignored it.

Ask whether you fully answered the concern, whether the manuscript itself contains the necessary clarification, and whether the information is easy to locate.

Your second response can acknowledge the persistence of the issue:

“Thank you for returning to this point. We recognise that our previous revision did not sufficiently clarify…”

Then explain the additional action you have taken.

This approach is generally more productive than saying, “We already answered this.”

5. Can a reviewer raise new issues during the second review?

Yes. New concerns can arise, particularly when revisions introduce new analyses, interpretations, data presentation, or explanations.

A reviewer may also recognise something during re-evaluation that was not apparent initially.

Evaluate the scientific relevance of the new request rather than rejecting it merely because it is new.

If the request would require work that fundamentally exceeds the study’s design or available data, explain the limitation respectfully and consider whether the editor needs to be involved.

6. Do I have to make every change a reviewer requests?

No, but you should respond to every substantive comment.

If you decide not to make a suggested change, explain why. The strongest explanation is based on research design, data, methodological appropriateness, theory, evidence, journal requirements, or realistic study boundaries.

Avoid dismissive statements.

Where possible, consider whether an alternative revision can address the reviewer’s underlying concern even if the exact proposed change is inappropriate.

7. What should I do if two reviewers give contradictory suggestions?

Identify the concern underlying each recommendation and determine whether a balanced revision can satisfy both.

For instance, if one reviewer requests more literature while another asks you to shorten the Introduction, you could add the most relevant literature while removing peripheral background.

Explain your decision separately to both reviewers so each can see how their concern was considered.

If the requirements are fundamentally incompatible, follow the editor’s direction or request editorial clarification.

8. What should I include in a second-round response letter?

Include every new editor and reviewer comment with a clear response underneath it.

For each substantive point, explain:

• Whether you agree
• What you changed
• Why you changed it
• Where the change appears
• Why you did not make a requested change, when applicable

PLOS instructs authors revising manuscripts to address reviewer and editor comments specifically and list the changes made. Elsevier likewise emphasizes organized, point-by-point responses that help the editor identify revisions efficiently.

Always follow your specific journal’s requirements.

9. Can a paper still be rejected after multiple revisions?

Yes.

Revision requests indicate continued consideration, not guaranteed acceptance. An editor may ultimately reject a manuscript if important scientific concerns remain unresolved, if new evidence affects the assessment, or if the manuscript still does not meet the journal’s requirements.

This is why authors should avoid treating reviewer responses as a purely administrative exercise.

Your revision should genuinely strengthen the manuscript while preserving scientific accuracy and transparency.

10. How do I know when I need professional help with reviewer changes?

Professional academic support can be useful when the difficulty lies in communication, structure, consistency, or managing a complex reviewer-response document rather than conducting the intellectual work of the research itself.

For example, support may help when:

• Reviewer comments are extensive or difficult to organize
• English is not your first language
• Your response sounds unintentionally defensive
• Several revision rounds have created manuscript inconsistencies
• You need a final language and clarity review
• The response letter and manuscript no longer align cleanly

Academic editing should not invent findings, perform undeclared intellectual work, fabricate references, or guarantee acceptance. The researcher must remain responsible for the research and final responses.

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

When a reviewer asks for changes again, the most important fact is that your manuscript is still moving through an editorial decision process unless the editor states otherwise. Another revision can occur because an earlier concern remains partly unresolved, a new question emerged from your changes, or the editor needs additional clarification before reaching a decision.

Do not measure progress merely by counting revision rounds.

Instead, evaluate whether the remaining concerns are becoming narrower and whether your manuscript is becoming more precise.

Read each comment carefully. Distinguish genuine scientific concerns from misunderstandings. Revise where appropriate. If you disagree, explain your reasoning respectfully. Make every response easy for the reviewer and editor to verify.

In some cases, self-review with your co-authors will be enough. When repeated revisions create language, structural, or consistency problems, professional research paper editing support may help strengthen communication while preserving your ownership of the research.

Peer review can feel repetitive, particularly when you believed the previous revision would be the last. But another request for changes is best approached not as another obstacle to satisfy mechanically, but as another opportunity to present the research as clearly, accurately, and convincingly as the evidence permits.

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