In short: A major revision is a project, not only a letter. Triage every comment, protect the deadline, decide experiment versus text work, write a calm editor note, and ship a complete file set. For the craft of the point-by-point letter itself, use how to respond to reviewer comments. For editing help on that letter, see reviewer response letter editing.
By On Time Publication Editorial Team · Last updated 28 October 2026
Authors often search “major revisions” and land on letter templates. Letter craft matters — and we already publish a full guide for it. This page owns the decision and project: should you revise here, what order of work, how to brief co-authors, when to ask for time, and how to brief the editor. Desk rejects are different: see desk rejection reasons. Full rejects and journal switches belong on resubmit after rejection.
Extract: deadline, required file types, whether clean + tracked manuscripts are both needed, word or figure limits after revision, and any editor instructions that override individual reviewers. List every numbered comment in a spreadsheet with columns for owner, action type (experiment / analysis / text / disagree), status, and manuscript location. That list becomes your internal Gantt chart and feeds the public response letter later.
Rank comments as (1) blocking experiments, (2) re-analysis of existing data, (3) clarifications and literature, (4) style and structure. Blocking work gets calendar time first. Non-blocking text work can run in parallel with manuscript editing or academic English editing so language quality does not become the final bottleneck.
When a reviewer asks for methods detail, align the manuscript with ethics and consent statements where human or animal work applies. Medical and nursing papers may need field-fluent editing via medical manuscript editing or nursing manuscript editing.
Back-plan from the deadline: data lock → manuscript freeze → internal co-author review → response letter freeze → portal upload buffer. If you need more time, write the editor as soon as you know, with a short plan and a realistic date. Silent lateness reads as disengagement. Extensions are common; surprise silence is not.
The cover note is short: thanks, overview of major changes, any new data, and a pointer to the detailed response. The point-by-point letter follows the craft in respond to reviewer comments — quote, answer, locate changes. Do not paste the entire letter into the cover note. Cover letter editing can help if the portal also asks for a revised submission letter.
You may decline a request when it is factually wrong, out of scope, or ethically impossible. Say so politely, cite evidence, and offer an alternative clarification in the text. Never ignore a comment. Never attack a reviewer. If comments suggest the paper belongs elsewhere, that is a resubmission strategy question — switch guides rather than forcing a misfit revision.
Match filenames to journal rules. Ensure figures match callouts. Update abstract and highlights if results shifted — abstract and title editing helps. Refresh references and format with formatting and referencing. Re-read the similarity situation ethically if large text blocks moved (similarity report editing support). Package portal steps with journal submission support if you want a checklist partner.
Expect another round: accept, minor, another major, or reject. Keep version control so you can see what changed between rounds. If the outcome is reject, do not recycle the same response letter blindly at a new journal — use resubmit after rejection and retarget with research paper publication support or database-specific routes such as Scopus and Web of Science publication support.
On Time Publication can edit your revised manuscript and your drafted response letter, check structure and tone, and help you package files. We will not invent experimental replies or guarantee acceptance. Start with a free assessment. Related reading: how to choose a publication consultant, PhD publication consultancy, open access journal selection.
We are not affiliated with COPE or the publishers linked. Always follow your journal’s decision letter.
The journal wants a revised manuscript for further consideration, usually after peer review. It is not acceptance. You typically stay with the same journal and must meet the deadline and file requirements in the decision letter.
Our respond-to-reviewer-comments guide covers letter craft — tone, quoting, point-by-point structure. This page is the project playbook: triage, timeline, experiments, editor note, and go/no-go. Use both together.
Usually yes if the comments are actionable and the journal remains a good fit. Walk away if demands require new data you cannot produce ethically, or if fit was always weak.
Journals set the deadline — often 30–90 days. Ask for an extension early with a concrete plan if experiments or co-author schedules require it. Do not go silent.
A short cover note thanking the editors, summarising the scale of changes, listing new experiments or analyses, and pointing to the detailed point-by-point response. Keep claims modest.
No. Triage: must-do experiments versus clarifications, analyses on existing data, literature updates, or polite evidenced disagreements. Document each choice in the response letter.
Explain the conflict clearly, propose a coherent path, and ask the editor to adjudicate when needed. Do not silently favour the easier reviewer.
No. Desk rejection means the paper never entered (or completed) peer review. See our desk-rejection guide. Major revision assumes reviewers or editors want a revised version.
Only with legitimate contribution changes and journal approval where required. Undeclared authorship changes look like misconduct. Follow the journal’s authorship policy.
Professional editing of your drafted letter is ethical when you remain the author of the scientific replies. See reviewer response letter editing. We will not invent answers to scientific critiques.
Clean manuscript, tracked-changes or highlighted manuscript, point-by-point response, and sometimes revised figures or supplementary files. Follow the decision letter exactly.
When required work exceeds your resources, ethics, or the paper’s scope; when reviewer demands push the study into a different research question; or when indexing/fit no longer matches your goals. Then use the resubmit-after-rejection playbook.
Send your title and abstract (or full manuscript), the index you need and your deadline. We will reply with suitable next steps and a written quote.
Pricing: custom quote based on word count, field and deadline. See how pricing works.
WhatsApp: +44 7916 693071
Email: info@ontimepublication.com
Tell us about your research and publication requirements. Our team will review your request and contact you to discuss the next steps.