What to do when a journal asks for revisions after peer review

Getting a revision request back from a journal can feel discouraging at first glance, especially if the comments read as blunt or critical, but this is actually one of the most common and normal outcomes in academic publishing, far more common than an outright rejection or an acceptance with no changes at all. If you need immediate help on this, reach out to us on WhatsApp. If you want to continue reading this helpful post, join me as I explain how to handle the revision properly.

Understand what type of decision you actually received

Journals typically issue one of a few decision types, minor revisions, major revisions, reject and resubmit, or outright rejection. Minor revisions usually means the core work is sound and only small clarifications or additions are needed. Major revisions means reviewers see real value in the work but have identified substantial issues that need to be addressed before it can be considered further. Read your decision letter carefully to understand which category you are actually in, since this determines how much work is ahead of you.

Read every comment before reacting to any of them

It helps to read through the entire set of reviewer comments once, fully, before responding to any single point, rather than reacting to the first critical comment you see. Reviewer feedback can feel personal in the moment, but it is almost always focused on strengthening the actual work, not on judging you personally. Give yourself a day or two if needed before starting your response, this small pause usually leads to a calm and more effective revision.

Address every single comment, even the ones you disagree with

Go through the reviewer comments point by point, and respond to each one individually, even those ones you ultimately decide not to act on. If a reviewer raises something you genuinely disagree with, explain your reasoning clearly and respectfully rather than ignoring the comment entirely. Editors and reviewers notice when a comment has simply been skipped, and this can hurt your case even when your underlying reasoning was sound.

Prepare a clear response letter

Most journals expect a structured response letter alongside your revised manuscript, listing each reviewer comment followed by your specific response and a note on exactly what you changed, often referencing the specific page or line number in your revised paper. This document matters as much as the revision itself, since it shows the editor and reviewers exactly how you engaged with their feedback without making them hunt through your full manuscript to find the changes.

Track your changes clearly in the manuscript

Use tracked changes or highlighted text in your revised manuscript so reviewers can see exactly what was modified without rereading the entire paper from scratch. This makes the review process faster and easier for everyone involved, and a clearer revision process often leads to a quicker final decision.

Stay within the deadline given

Journals usually give a specific window, usually a few weeks to a couple of months, to submit your revision. If you need more time, most journals allow you to request an extension, but you should ask before the deadline passes rather than after, since missing a deadline without communication can sometimes result in your submission being treated as withdrawn.

If the decision is reject and resubmit

This decision type means the journal is not accepting your current submission but is open to a substantially revised version treated as a new submission. Take this seriously as an opportunity rather than a soft rejection, many published papers went through exactly this path before final acceptance.

Common mistakes that people make include:

• Reacting emotionally to the first critical comment instead of reading the full set first

• Ignoring comments the author disagrees with instead of responding to them directly

• Submitting a revised manuscript without a clear response letter explaining each change

• Missing the revision deadline without requesting an extension in advance

• Treating a reject and resubmit decision as a final rejection instead of a real opportunity

I would love to state that handling peer review revisions well is a skill that gets easier with practice, and a well handled revision often results in a genuinely stronger final paper than the original submission. If you want help working through reviewer comments or preparing your response letter, my team at ProjectPal can support you through this stage. Reach out to us on WhatsApp to get started.