Introduction | Revision is one of the most easily misunderstood parts of the submission process: a letter marked “major revision” is often read as bad news for a long time. In fact, it is more like a checklist—one that lists the places several readers think you have not yet explained clearly.
1. On the day you receive the letter, don't rush to defend yourself
When the email arrives, most people's first reaction is to read it word by word and get annoyed word by word: this sentence is questioning my method, that sentence is denying my conclusion. After reading for half an hour, there is more emotion than information.
But reviewer comments are actually written in a very plain way: The reviewer is reporting “where I got stuck while reading.” When they say the method description is insufficient, it is usually not a suspicion of data fabrication, but that they genuinely cannot reproduce it; when they say the conclusion is drawn too broadly, it is usually not an objection to your findings, but a concern that readers will misuse them.
If you read this letter as a checklist, the first thing to do is not to rebut, but to categorize.
2. There are three paths for a review decision, and the focus is completely different
In the same letter, the judgments of three reviewers may not be consistent: some ask you to supplement data, while others merely find the wording unclear. First distinguish which category each comment belongs to, then decide how much effort to spend.
• Minor revision: comments are mostly concentrated on wording, figures/tables, and citation format; the focus is to revise every item properly and state clearly where each change was made;
• Major revision with re-review: there is usually one substantive comment; the focus is to complete the research corresponding to that comment, and fix the rest along the way;
• Not suitable for this journal: there is no need to rebut every point; the focus is to take away the valuable comments and submit to another journal.
First determine “what this letter is asking for,” then decide “what I need to do.” If you misjudge the direction, the harder you work later, the further off course you will go.
3. How to schedule 30 days from receiving comments to resubmission
The most common failure in revision is not poor revisions, but imbalanced scheduling: spending the first two weeks agonizing over one comment, and rushing through all revisions in the last three days.
A workable schedule looks roughly like this:
• Day 1: Read through all comments and separate them by reviewer and type—which items require additional experiments, and which are merely wording changes;
• Days 2–3: Align with your advisor to confirm which items must be revised and which can be addressed with an explanation;
• Days 4–10: Supplement experiments, data, and methodological details—this period determines the upper limit of the entire revision round;
• Days 11–20: Revise the main text and mark the location of each change in the tracked-changes manuscript;
• Days 21–28: Write the response letter, mapping each item to its location;
• Days 29–30: Read through the full manuscript and response letter, then submit.
The categorization work on Day 1 is tedious, but you can use tools: organize the comments item by item into a log, separate them by type first, and then handle them one by one. Don't skimp on the remaining three days for alignment—confirming with your advisor “which to revise and which to explain” can often save a week of rework.
4. What reviewers write and what they are worried about
Revising word by word often misses the point. For the same comment, the surface request and the real concern are often not the same thing:
• “The sample size is insufficient to support conclusions of this scope”—the concern is that the boundaries of the conclusion are not clearly stated and readers will misuse it; the response should clarify the applicable scope, or add a set of validation data, and explain the limitations in the discussion;
• “The difference from the authors' previous work is not obvious”—the concern is that the increment is not visible; the response should use a paragraph to clearly explain what is new and why this step is necessary;
• “The method description is insufficient for reproduction”—the concern is that others cannot reproduce it, reducing its value; the response should supplement parameters, conditions, and a data availability statement.
Review comments are questions, not verdicts. Only when you translate them into “what is he worried about” will your response have a point of contact.
5. How to write the response letter: the document that matters more than the review comments themselves
Some revisions are returned a second time not because the revisions are insufficient, but because the response letter is hard to read. Its structure is actually quite fixed:
1. A sentence of thanks and an overall statement: thank the reviewers for their comments and explain which major revisions were made in this round;
2. Overview of overall revisions: which items are substantive revisions and which are wording adjustments;
3. Item-by-item response (main body): first restate the comment, then write the response, and finally note the location of the revision in the main text;
4. Explanation of items not revised: clearly explain the reasons and alternative approaches, keeping a polite tone;
5. List of materials: tracked-changes manuscript, supplementary materials, and a comparison of figure/table updates.
The response letter is not a defense brief; it is a comparison table showing “I have addressed everything you said.” What reviewers most want to see is: the item I mentioned—did you address it, and where?
The item-by-item organization and generation of the response framework can be handled by MuchSci's “Paper Sailor”: arrange the comments in order, first build the mapping of “comment—response—location,” and you only need to write each item in your own words. Save your energy for the few items that require judgment.
6. Common reading biases when reading this checklist
| What reviewers write | What they are usually worried about | What must appear in the response |
| The sample size is insufficient to support conclusions of this scope | The boundaries of the conclusion are unclear, and readers will misuse it | Clarify the applicable scope, or add a set of validation data |
| The difference from previous work is not obvious | It is unclear where the increment lies | Explain the new content and its necessity in one paragraph |
| The method description is insufficient for reproduction | Others cannot reproduce it, reducing its value | Supplement parameters, conditions, and a data availability statement |
| The conclusion is stated too absolutely | The strength of the evidence does not support the wording | Adjust the wording, or add evidence and explain the limitations |
| The figures/tables are difficult to read | Key trends cannot be found in the figures | Redraw the figures and explain where changes were made |
7. A few things that will make matters worse if you do them
• Responding only to some items: missing any single item can easily be understood as “the authors avoided this question”;
• Confrontational tone: rebuttal is fine, but first restate the other party's concern clearly, then explain why another interpretation is more reasonable;
• Promising experiments you cannot do: agreeing to add experiments in order to “look cooperative” will make the next round harder to conclude;
• Making changes without marking their locations: if reviewers cannot find the changes, it is as good as not changing anything;
• “Optimizing” data along the way: never acceptable at any time. No matter how much pressure there is during revision, data should only be presented according to the true results.
8. When time is short, you can also request an extension
Revisions have deadlines, but most journals accept reasonable extension requests. Rather than rushing out a rough revision in the last three days, it is better to write a short letter early stating the expected timeline—with a specific reason, a date, and an explanation of progress—and it will usually be approved.
The only cost of this step is proactively admitting that you “need more time,” and this is often more worthwhile than the hidden risks left by rushing.
9. After the revision
After completing a round of revision, you will find that your understanding of the work is more complete than before submission: which statement lacks supporting evidence, which condition was not explained clearly, and which figure readers really cannot understand. These are exactly what the review comments helped you identify.
So the result of a revision is not just an accepted paper, but a further advance in your understanding of your own work. No matter how well the letter is written, it only explains this understanding clearly. Before your next submission, you might as well treat yourself as the most critical reviewer—this is probably the most useful habit a round of revision can leave behind.