It is my first article ever in this field. I submited it to a high impact journal last year and just got the decision today -- acceptance with major revision. I have no idea whether this bad or not. One of reviewers sounds unreasonable while the other was asking relatively good questions. Can someone explain to me what to do, my co authors honestly did not believe in the idea of the paper and called it bullshit on multiple occassion .

  • 2
    Does this answer your question? How to review a major revision of a paper? Jun 2 at 12:52
  • 1
    A better outcome is very rare after the first review round. Congratulations! You should discuss with your advisor how to revise the manuscript.
    – Roland
    Jun 2 at 13:03
  • 1
    Just to the coauthor thing, which sounds concerning: be certain that all your coauthors made sufficient intellectual contributions to the paper, that they all consented to the original submission, and that they all consent to the revised version that you resubmit. And you may want to rethink whether to continue working with these people on future projects. Jun 2 at 15:00
  • As I said comment below they agree to submit didnot force them but one of them who is really very toxic. It is out of question they agreed for both. For the record they never contributed intellectually in the study and considered risky however they for sure reviewed before submission which they are credited for. Mainly in their perspective it is a risky idea and other find BS idea. I read reviewer comment I think both said the study is interesting as it is one of the reviewer has no much experience the other was way more interesting.
    – Monika
    Jun 2 at 15:14

3 Answers 3


Congratulations. If they give you major revision, you have to revise the paper thoroughly. While they are in their rights to reject the revision, this is now somewhat unlikely, unless, of course, you do not do the work on the revision. Pay attention to all the reviewers comments and suggestions. You usually have to provide an additional paper on how you addressed them.


There is a strange double message here.

First: acceptance with a major revision is a good thing. It's an acceptance.

In response to

One of reviewers sounds unreasonable while the other was asking relatively good questions.

you pay attention to both reveiwers. Read the "unreasonable" one's comments carefully. Put your prejudice aside and think about whether what they say is sometimes reasonable.

When you send your revision to the editor, explain which suggested changes you accepted, and which you rejected (and why).


my co authors honestly did not believe in the idea of the paper and called it bullshit on multiple occassion

is weird and raises several questions. Why did they think so? Why did they agree to submit that work? Might the unreasonable reviewer be right? Are they willing to work on the major revision?

Answers to those questions might affect your decision about what to do next.

  • I can answer the last question they agreed to submit and I didnot force them one of them never understood and doubt what I am doing and the other one is kind of jealousy and belittling me since both of them considered it is a risky idea, so I understand their motivation one of them is quite fine and told me work on the comments.
    – Monika
    Jun 2 at 14:41
  • For the unreasonable reviewer one there is no really so much interesting arguments like reviewer one which was really intriguing and they seem working in the field. In fact, I said that since they refered to certain animals names I mentioned in the paper, if they were authors and make agreement which is ridiculous and funny and for sure this is unacceptable. Plus I recognize they never worked in this area based on their questions
    – Monika
    Jun 2 at 14:43

First, it's concerning your co-authors didn't support the idea of the paper. It makes it sound like you wrote the paper alone.

As for your major revisions question, most papers require revisions after you submit it to a journal. Some papers require minor revisions (e.g. like graphs, tables, or grammatical fixes)

Major revisions refer to the claims you made in the paper. Meaning, your paper looks promising, but your claims are so big that you must support them more thoroughly.

For example, perhaps you made very big claims, but you didn't provide sufficient information/data/stats/equations to support your claims.

  • Yes I wrote the paper as idea online and they review generic stuff but they always didnot like me and my ideas also the response I got discouraging as they were expect rejection. Anyway, I am working on comments I am afraid I need this to be accepted. Should I only quote their comments or change the whole paper?
    – Monika
    Jun 6 at 18:18

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .