Is this acceptable to revise a manuscript more than what reviewers suggested? In fact, due to some issue, the authors may find out that there are some issues even reviewers could not address, so they decided to extend the revision border.
P.s. What about imposing changes so that affect the title, abstract and a large portion of manuscript. In an advise to a friend of mine, I warned him of doing so because it results in a new paper not a standard revised version. Nonetheless, I told him that is the case of such comprehensive revision he should carefully explain reasons behind that decision. Can such rational explanation convince the reviewers to consider another round of review?