Understanding journal decisions: A guide for authors

It is easy to assume that after you have submitted your manuscript to a journal, the next logical step is to wait for a decision. But behind the scenes, what follows is a highly complex and multi-layered evaluation that begins with an initial screening, moves to the peer review process, and ends with the editor’s final judgment. Every journal decision – whether it’s a desk rejection, request for revisions, or an acceptance – is the result of this complex interplay of assessments, feedback, and editorial discretion. Understanding these outcomes can help you set realistic expectations, interpret reviewer comments more effectively, and make stronger resubmissions. Let’s explore the key types of decisions journal editors make, why they make them, and what these decisions mean for you as an author.

Types of journal decisions

1. Reject without review (desk rejection)

A desk rejection, often the first decision in the manuscript submission cycle, happens when the editor decides that a manuscript does not meet the journal’s submission criteria. For instance, a paper aimed at a clinical audience will be ill suited for a decision analytics journal that is focused on data modeling and systems thinking. Common journal rejection reasons at this stage include: 

• Misalignment with the journal’s aims and scope 

• Weak research design or incomplete data 

• Lack of clear contribution or relevance 

• Ethical or authorship issues 

• Poor presentation that makes it difficult for the reader to understand the content 

If you receive a desk rejection for your manuscript, don’t lose heart. These early rejections are part of an essential quality control process that helps journals manage thousands of submissions. Use this decision to reassess your manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses and ensure that your next target journal is the right venue for your research. 

2. Send for peer review

If your manuscript clears the initial screening, the editor’s next move is to send it for peer review. This is a critical step in the journal decision-making process, where your work is evaluated by subject area experts for accuracy, originality, and significance. This decision reflects the editor’s confidence that your research adds value to the field and meets the basic journal submission criteria. For you, this is a sign that your paper is being taken seriously and that irrespective of the outcome, you will receive insightful feedback on your work.  

In some cases, the journal editor may choose to invite a third peer reviewer to corroborate the comments from the first two reviewers. Once the peer review process concludes, the editor synthesizes reviewers’ comments to reach a decision on the manuscript. 

3. Reject (after peer review)

Sometimes, even after a thorough review, an editor may determine that the paper will meet the journal’s standards even after it has been improved/revised. A rejection after review is based on a combination of reviewer feedback and editorial judgment. Typical journal rejection reasons at this stage include major methodological flaws, insufficient data validation, lack of theoretical depth, or failure to address reviewer feedback. 

Although it is not easy to deal with this decision, especially after peer review, it still provides value. Take a step back for a deeper look at the journal’s comments. Use the constructive feedback provided by the editors and reviewers to strengthen your manuscript and resubmit it as a stronger piece.  

4. Revise and resubmit – major revisions required (after peer review)

Often, after looking through peer review comments, the journal editor is convinced that your research is promising but needs several improvements. In such cases, the editor decides that your paper needs major revisions to one or multiple sections. Major revisions often involve conducting additional experiments, elaborating the discussion, or restructuring parts of the paper. Editors typically send the revised version back to reviewers to confirm that their feedback was addressed.  

Remember that this decision is an opportunity for you to elevate your manuscript by making substantial improvements. It means that the editor believes in your paper’s potential. View it as an opportunity, not a setback, and approach the feedback with diligence and openness. However, if you feel that some of the revision requests will significantly alter the time frame of your study or will change the scope of your work, carefully weigh the pros and cons of these revisions and discuss this with the journal editor.  

5. Revise and resubmit – minor revisions required (after peer review)

A minor revision decision indicates that your manuscript is very close to publication and only needs a few tweaks. At this point, the editor is confident about the quality of your work. In some cases, the revised manuscript is not sent to the reviewers and handled by the editorial desk/editor internally before being accepted for publication. 

The changes requested in this decision are usually minor, such as refining the language in some parts, improving figures, or clarifying results. Carefully address every comment, draft a professional response letter, and ensure that all reviewer suggestions are reflected in your updated draft. 

6. Revise and resubmit

Some journals use an intermediate “revise and resubmit” outcome for manuscripts that have potential but are not yet suitable for publication, unless significant changes are made. Although this decision is a form of rejection, it that means the manuscript is not ready for acceptance, but the editor believes it could be reconsidered as a new submission after major revisions. This distinction matters. When you resubmit, it is treated as a new submission and may be sent to a different set of reviewers. 

A revise and resubmit decision indicates that the editor wants to give the research a second chance but cannot commit to publication without significant changes. 

7. Conditional acceptance

Conditional acceptance means your manuscript is nearly ready for publication. The editor has agreed to publish it after you complete specific, minor tasks such as clarifying a paragraph, correcting formatting, or adding a missing citation. 

This decision is the journal’s way of saying: “You’re in, pending final checks.” It is a strong endorsement of your research and its potential contribution to the field. 

8. Acceptance

This is the decision that everyone hopes for. When your manuscript reaches this stage, it has met the journal’s standards for originality, methodological soundness, and relevance. An acceptance is not just an editorial green light. It is an acknowledgment that your work adds something meaningful to the scholarly discourse in the field. From this step, the paper moves to copyediting, typesetting, and final proofing before publication. 

9. Transfer to another journal

Many publishers use shared manuscript submission systems that enable their editors to suggest transferring a paper to a different journal under the same publisher (often with peer review reports). This could mean, for example, that the editor recommends that a manuscript be transferred from a flagship journal to a more specialized one. Transfer options can save time and help authors find the right journal and audience for their manuscript.  

Bonus tips: Distinguishing between major, minor, and revise-and-resubmit decisions

Three outcomes – major revisions, minor revisions, and revise and resubmit, often confuse authors, especially those navigating their initial journal submissions. While all three involve improvement, they differ in editorial intent and the extent of changes recommended. 

• Major revisions: Substantial improvements are required. However, the manuscript stays in the review cycle. The editor will likely send the revised manuscript back to the same reviewers. 

• Minor revisions: Only small adjustments are needed, and these could be reviewed by the editor alone. Acceptance is highly likely once the changes are made. 

• Revise and resubmit: The manuscript will be treated as a new submission. It requires significant rework and a new round of review. This means that while the journal editor’s decision is to reject a manuscript, the author is also welcome to try again. 

The journal decision-making process is multi-layered, involving both human judgment and structured evaluation. Every editorial decision – from desk rejection to acceptance – reflects a combination of factors such as reviewer feedback, editorial expertise, and ethical publishing standards. Understanding these decisions can help you navigate the submission process with clarity and confidence. Whether your paper is accepted, rejected, or conditionally accepted, each decision provides valuable direction. Understanding the nuances of these decisions will help you prioritize your revisions, manage your time, and interpret what the editor really means. 

Found this useful? Join the ReviewerOne community for more resources to help you succeed as an author and reviewer.