I got a review from a reputed Elsevier journal. There're three reviewers, one decided recommend acceptation, other recommended a minor revision and the last one recommended a major revision.
Overall, is it a major or minor revision then?
Academia Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for academics and those enrolled in higher education. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
It's up to the editor to make the decision. Their job is to read the reviews and decide if the criticism is substantial enough to justify a major revision.
If the editor is lazy, they might resort to shortcuts, such as: follow the least favorable recommendation, or take the average of all recommendations. But that is a poor practice.
As far as you are concerned, your work cannot be accepted in current form but may be if you address the comments raised by the reviewers. (A good editor will make this explicit and expand on what they require and what they recommend.)
The question of "major" vs. "minor" is mostly internal (between reviewers and editor) and has two basic functions:
If it is a very selective journal, editors may decide that a major revision is unlikely to be successful within a reasonable timeframe and reject the paper at this stage rather than waste the time of everyone involved on a second round with uncertain outcome -- there are enough excellent papers submitted that can be published with only minor changes.
Related to this, major revisions are more involved and take more time than minor revisions, so the deadline for resubmission will be longer (months instead of weeks).
Whether a revised manuscript will be sent for another round of reviews is the sole decision of the handling editor; while it's virtually guaranteed for a major revision, it may or may not happen for a minor revision based on the specific comments, the responses to them, and how confident the editor feels about evaluating themselves whether the comments have been addressed adequately.
TL;DR: As an author, revision is revision; if you absolutely have to distinguish how it's been logged in the system for some reason, look at when you are asked to submit the revised version at the latest.
It depends on the reason for the differences.
Often, especially with multi-disciplinary work, one reviewer will not have the knowledge required to assess every aspect of the paper. The editors may pick reviewers from several different specialties so that between them, they can cover the whole work.
In that case, getting one "major revisions" and two "minor revisions" probably means that there was a serious problem, but only one reviewer had experience in the relevant field necessary to recognise that problem. Obviously the editor should then treat the outcome as "major revisions".
But if the work is within a single discipline and all the reviewers have the knowledge necessary to assess the whole work, it's possible that all of the reviewers noticed the same issue but they disagreed on how serious it was, in which case it becomes more of a subjective judgement call for the editor to decide whether Reviewer Two is being too harsh.