One of the most important stages of peer review is the recommendation to the journal editor. Of all the recommendations, peer reviewers often struggle to decide between recommending major revisions and rejection. Both recommendations indicate that a manuscript is not ready for publication in its current form. But they signal very different things about a paper’s prospects. They also have very different implications for authors because they determine what authors should do next – work on the feedback again or rebuild the manuscript from scratch for submission to another journal.
Getting this judgment right matters. Recommending major revisions for a paper that should be rejected wastes everyone’s time and gives authors false hope. Conversely, recommending rejection for one that has the foundations of a publishable study denies authors and the field the benefit of working on suggestions that would improve their work. Let’s take a deeper look at both these revisions to help you understand how you can frame your recommendation clearly.
Common recommendations made by peer reviewers
Most journals use a standard set of recommendations: accept minor revisions, provisionally accept major revisions, and reject. It helps to be clear about what each of these actually means.
- “Accept” means the manuscript is ready to publish as is, or with only copyediting. This is rare on the first peer review round. Most manuscripts require at least minor changes.
- “Minor revisions” indicates that the paper is fundamentally sound, and the issues you have identified can be addressed in a straightforward revision without another round of peer review.
- “Major revisions” means the paper has the potential to be considered for publication, but requires substantial work, additional analyses, significant restructuring, or improved reporting Editors will need to see how the recommended changes have been addressed and typically queue the submission up for another round of review.
- “Reject” means the paper is not ready or suitable for publication the journal in its current form because the problems are fundamental and cannot be fixed through revisions; it is not within the journal’s scope, or the contribution is insufficient.
Deciding between recommending major revisions and rejection
The key question is: will the manuscript be ready to be considered for publication once the issues you have identified have been addressed? Or do they represent fundamental flaws that cannot be resolved through revisions?
Fixable issues include insufficient details in the methods, inadequate statistical reporting, an unclear structure, overstated conclusions, missing supplementary material, or gaps in the literature review. These are genuine problems that require real work to be addressed, but they do not undermine the validity of the study.
Fundamental problems include a study design that is inappropriate for the research question and cannot be redesigned post hoc, data collection that cannot be redone, analyses that are so flawed that the results cannot be trusted, or conclusions that are not supported by any reasonable interpretation of the data.
When “major revisions” is the right call
Recommend major revisions when
- You believe the paper addresses an important and appropriate research question.
- The core methodology is sound even if it needs better documentation or additional validation
- The results are credible
- The conclusions are broadly appropriate
- The problems you have identified can be addressed by the authors without having to redesign the study.
When recommending major revisions, be specific about what needs to change. A general request for “more rigorous analysis” is not useful. A request to “provide a power calculation justifying the sample size and conduct a sensitivity analysis removing the outliers identified in Figure 3” is something the authors can act on. Your comments justifying the major revisions recommendation should give the authors and editors a clear picture of what the paper needs to be considered for publication.
When “rejection” is the right call
Recommend rejection when:
- The study design cannot support the conclusions regardless of how the reporting is improved.
- The data are unreliable, whether due to inadequate collection, contamination, or irreconcilable inconsistencies.
- The research question has already been answered convincingly in the literature, and the study adds nothing new.
- The manuscript is outside the scope of the journal and would be better submitted elsewhere.
- The ethical integrity of the research is compromised.
If you are recommending rejection, say clearly why. Vague recommendations for rejection are unhelpful for editors and potentially discouraging for authors. A rejection recommendation that explains specifically what the fundamental problem is, and, where appropriate, suggests what kind of publication or research approach might be more appropriate, makes a genuine contribution even though it delivers disappointing news.
Avoiding common mistakes when recommending rejection or major revisions
Here are a few common mistakes to avoid when trying to decide between recommending major revisions and rejection for a manuscript:
- Recommending major revisions when you really want to recommend rejection because you are anxious about delivering bad news. This is counterproductive. If a paper has fundamental problems, saying so clearly is kinder in the long run than sending the authors on a revision journey that will end in rejection anyway.
- Recommending rejection on the basis of personal taste, disliking the research question, preferring a different methodological approach, or judging the contribution as insufficiently novel for a higher-impact journal when the journal in question has different standards. The recommendation to reject a manuscript should be based on the validity and contribution of the work, not on what you would have done differently.
Framing your recommendation
Whether you recommend major revisions or rejection, your recommendation should be consistent with the substance of your report. For example, your peer review report could be misleading/confusing if it identifies several minor presentation issues and then recommends major revisions or identifies fundamental methodological problems and then recommends major revisions.
Read your report before you submit it and ensure that your recommendation follows logically from the concerns you have raised. If it does not, either adjust the recommendation or reconsider whether you have correctly characterized the severity of the concerns.
We’d like to hear from you
Have you struggled to choose between major revisions and rejection? What helped you decide? Share your thoughts in the comments.
For structured guidance on all aspects of decision-making in peer review, join the ReviewerOne Community.
Leave a Comment