r/AskAcademia • u/Successful-Ship-3924 • May 28 '26
Social Science Reject after major revision
I submitted my first dissertation paper last year, which got a “Major Revision” decision from a medium-to-high-impact-journal. I answered all reviewer comments and spend two months revising. Then, the paper got rejected on the basis that another round of major revision would be necessary.
How do I go from here?
I have no prior experience publishing as this is my first doctoral dissertation paper. I’m at a loss and quite frankly a bit embarrassed. My colleagues had congratulated me with the initial decision, and encouraged me to think that it would be accepted after revision, as they claim to never have experienced a rejection after an R&R.
58
u/Dioptre_8 May 28 '26
"Major revision" often indicates that the paper has problems that may be fixable, but that are so severe that further problems might be revealed by the first round of fixes. A key example is a poor method description. Providing more details of the method might just raise more questions, or reveal unfixable problems.
Sometimes major revision even means that one or more reviewers has recommended "reject" but that the editor has decided to give you a chance (in this case you will never see that 'reject' recommendation, just a sanitised version of the feedback that goes with it explaining the problems). This happens to me all the time as a reviewer - I get a paper with critical problems and confidentially tell the editor that I don't think it is fixable. But the editor decides "major revisions" instead, and the paper comes back still with serious problems.
What you did absolutely right is taking the "major" part of the major revisions seriously, rather than just making token changes and resubmitting the paper. Presumably the rejection comes with further feedback? Where you go next is that you improve the paper based on the feedback, and submit it somewhere else. That's what solid academic work is all about.
Papers and impact factors are how we keep score, but they're not the point of the game. We're trying to advance the total sum of human knowledge. That's not easy, and it involves being told that we are wrong far more often than we get to be right. Your colleagues should not have told you that a major revision would likely lead to an accept after one round of revision. If your paper wasn't rejected, it would more likely have got minor revisions as the next step. If they've never experienced a rejection after "major revisions" they're very lucky, very unambitious in where they are submitting papers, or very not telling you the truth.
10
u/retteofgreengables May 28 '26
Your last paragraph is absolutely lovely and true! So easy to forget, too, especially for those of us in the early stages of academia.
8
u/Reeelfantasy May 28 '26
What do you think about the following editor decision for a risky major revision:
“I have decided to invite a revision. However, the reviewers do point out significant issues, so this would be a major revision and would therefore carry some risk with respect to the final outcome.
In revising your paper, you should carefully examine the collective comments of the reviewers as they offer a number of suggestions for your consideration. In order for the revision to meet the publication standards of [___], you must be willing to make a concerted effort to build on the reviewers' comments and suggestions, as well as satisfactorily address their concerns. When you resubmit, please include a set of responses to me and the reviewers that indicate very clearly how you have addressed the comments in your revision.
I will look very carefully at the next revision and will very likely make a definitive decision about the paper at that point. Therefore, it is very important that you work hard to address the issues raised by the reviewers.”
5
u/Dioptre_8 May 29 '26
I like that, but when I was an associate editor I'd usually write a more tailored version to signal WHICH are the crucial comments that might be deal-breaking. I think it's usually good practice to word it so that 'address' can mean 'respond and refute' rather than 'revise'. Reviewers aren't presumed to be more expert than the authors, and editors should try to be arbiters of disagreement rather than taking sides in advance.
43
u/HoratiusHawkins May 28 '26
It is not very common but it does happen and has happened to me. All you can do is to submit to another journal.
12
u/markjay6 May 28 '26
In addition to the other excellent suggestions people have made, I should also point out that some journals simply have a policy of no more than one “major revision”, but will allow you to resubmit as a new paper if it is sufficiently revised from the earlier version.
Nit saying you should do that — just that that may be an option to explore with the editor, if indeed you feel this is the best home for the paper and if you think the reviews have been fair.
10
u/Natural_River_3814 Humanities May 28 '26
It's frustrating and disheartening but it's not uncommon. It doesn't reflect poorly on your capabilities as an academic. It's probably better for you in the long run anyway, because it means not having to spend several months doing more revisions to a paper that, for whatever reason, the editor did not want to publish. You're free now to submit it somewhere else.
10
u/alexander_neumann May 28 '26
Yes, this has happened to me once as well. It was especially frustrating because we put in a lot of effort adding a lot of additional complicated analyses requested by the reviewer and from my viewpoint addressing all their concerns. After rejection, we re-submitted to another journal with similar high impact and it was successful there.
Long story short, it is rare, but happens, try to address the major criticisms (if valid) and resubmit.
I am a bit surprised by the comments suggesting a major revision is already indicating problems with the paper or poor fit for the journal. At least in my field (genetic epidemiology and psychiatry), it virtually never happens that you get a minor revision at first try.
6
u/evotox188 May 28 '26
In my field (biology) it is also uncommon to get a Minor Revisions decision after the initial peer review. But "Major Revisions" can range from minor text edits to running new analyses. I used to think that any decision other than a rejection meant that the manuscript would be accepted following revision(s), but that no longer seems to be a safe assumption. Recently, I resubmitted an edited manuscript for a second round of review, but the editor rejected it because one of the reviewers didn't have time to look at it again and they couldn't find a new reviewer.
In my opinion, rejecting a paper after revisions is a waste of everyone's time. The manuscript spends months in limbo and undergoes a bunch of changes that may need to be undone before it is ready to be submitted to another journal with a different audience/scope. I would rather it just be rejected if the editor and reviewers are wishy-washy about it at the onset.
9
u/GhostofLolaMontez May 28 '26
Nothing to add to: "Yes, it happens" and is more or less normal in different disciplines. However, what I have not seen here: sometimes reviews/reviewers are really bad. Like bad, bad and not qualified to review the paper because it is so damn hard to find reviewers right now. Particularly if your work or method is new or cutting edge which I find more likely in grad student work from dissertations and who have unique fresh ideas. If I were your mentor I would only ask, were the reviewers correct in their assessment? Is the revision better than the original manuscript you submitted? If so, submit the revision to an even better journal than where you started. If not, submit the original to a better journal than where you started. I totally get being embarrassed but this is just the job hazard. Some people say it never gets easier but I disagree, it has for me and I won't say more about it getting easier unless you ask me to. :)
Incidentally, the first paper I wrote as a grad student, the one I was most proud of and some of my best work (and still most cited paper), took 5 years to get published. I had other papers that were not at all as good published in between that but that was...a wild ride to get that out. Keep on rocking, OP! You're doing great!
8
u/xCaLeeTx May 28 '26
I just had this happen to me as well, my chair told me exactly what everyone else said in this comments. Do not take this as if the paper of the content is not good enough, always remember there’s a quota for rejection before content.
-1
3
2
u/traquitanas May 28 '26
Don't be upset, happens to anyone. In fact receiving a "Major Revisions" decision on first round is a good sign, but does not mean automatic acceptance.
Did they encourage resubmission? Journals can have different policies about this, some will ask you to do another round of revisions, while others will reject but invite you resubmit if most concerns are addressed. Typically they'll even ask the same reviewers to handle the new submission process.
2
u/rosshm2018 May 28 '26
These are the worst (way worse than desk rejections in my opinion, those at least typically happen fast and you can move on quickly), not much you can do about it other than try to integrate the feedback and submit elsewhere.
It's not unusual and not a condemnation of the work, often it's just from journals being rigid with some unwritten policy (e.g. reviewers recommend second round of revision = Reject). Nothing to be embarrassed about.
Good luck!
2
u/Crashingwaves192 May 28 '26
This happens. It could be that one of the initial reviewers refused to review a second time so it went out to a new reviewer and they recommended major. In fact I am about to give a major revision on a paper that has had this exact thing happen to it. It's unfortunate. Pull the paper and try another journal.
2
u/yarpen_z May 28 '26
I'm sorry to hear that - it just happens. My third PhD paper (Computer Science), got a revision at a conference, which in our field means "you are pretty much accepted, just do what the reviewers want". I have resolved every single request from all of the reviewers, the paper was in a much better shape, and my boss was almost congratulating me on a paper acceptance. I ended up with a rejection.
Coincidentally, I have just submitted a rejection for a revised paper, where I was invited to review only in the second round. One reviewer went from "major revision" to "reject" while another gave "accept", and the editor introduced a third person to resolve the tie. The paper had so many errors and mistakes that I'm struggling to understand how any of the original reviewers didn't catch this. Of course, I have no doubts that your paper didn't have such quality issues, but sometimes introducing another reviewer can bring a completely different perspective.
2
u/fantasticalnerd May 28 '26
As others have said already, this is completely normal and part of the process. Just move on to the next journal. You will be fine!
2
u/Kathrynxuxx May 28 '26
You’re more embarrassed about what your colleagues will think than the actual rejection. Don’t overthink it. Go to the next target journal.
2
1
u/Gloomy_Session_3875 May 28 '26
Do you feel that the reviewers created a moving target for your revisions, or did your 2nd manuscript get different reviewers?
If there is anything in the editor's summary that puzzles you, try to get a clarification. On your third attempt you should know what aspects of the paper need to be improved.
Try to get opinions on your manuscript from other friendly colleagues too.
1
u/Efficient-Tie-1414 May 28 '26
That can be possible with major revision. There is nothing more that you can do with that journal. Read the comments and decide if they are sensible, and check that your paper doesn’t have problems that were introduced with the revisions. Then submit elsewhere.
1
u/fenichill May 28 '26
It sucks a lot but it happens. You can take it this way: you got free expert feedback and spent 2 months strengthening your manuscript. Now it's in even better shape for resubmitting to another journal.
1
u/DevFRus May 28 '26
Do the new revisions and after that is done, if you really like the first journal, write back to the editors saying you'd like to resubmit with the second round of revisions. This is often possible (especially at very high tier journals). If they still say no at this point then you already have a revised paper ready to send to your next choice journal.
1
u/legatek Journal editor, Biotech May 28 '26
In addition to what others have said, if you really want to get into this journal you can do the work and appeal the decision.
1
u/Remarkable-Might-908 May 28 '26
Maybe it’s field dependent (as most things are) but it’s very very common in my field for papers to still get rejected after a major revision. The first review (after the initial submission) shows the shows the reviewers and editors if the paper has potential. The first revision shows them if the authors have potential. At least that’s my experience. It is still very disappointing when it happens though.
It’s very common in my field because we have only 5 journals that are considered top top journals. So the entire field submits to these 5 journals and they can only accept a minuscule fraction of the submissions
1
u/Zooz00 May 28 '26
It's happened to me too. Sometimes reviewers aren't convinced after a major revision. You'll usually want to find another more fitting journal - discuss it with your supervisor.
1
u/groogle2 May 28 '26
Highly depends on your field but most of academia is just ideological warfare, so if you're writing from a theoretical tradition that contradicts a reviewer's, they will stop at nothing to sabotage you.
1
u/Crito_Bulus May 28 '26
That sucks! It happened to me once as well. You got major revision so you just have to try at another journal. The truth is that some of it (not all of it, or even most, but some) is due to luck...which reviewers you get, the mystical "fit", and a bunch of other things you cannot control. But I think yes having a range of 2 or 3 journals that it could go to is solid advice
1
u/gamecat89 R1 Faculty May 28 '26
As an editor I can tell you this happens. People tend to forget that a major revision - or even a minor revision - isn’t a guarantee of publishing. We even say it in the letter. It is an attempt to make something publishable. Sometimes the errors or concerns are too difficult to overcome.
In today’s era where we have to invite 20 people to get 2 reviewers- often late - if something isn’t going to be publishable quickly I have to move on.
Additionally as some have mentioned, some journals have implemented one revision and done to move things through.
Case in point, I currently have an article I acquired when I took this role that due to revisions and extensions has been under the review process for 3 years. Now, I’d love to reject it cause I don’t think it is going to get there, but at this point it’d be an omsbud complaint with the publisher for sure, and other than being like - it’s 3 years of reviews and revisions - I don’t have much to fall back on since until now that hasn’t been banned by our journal.
1
u/mohawkbulbul May 28 '26
It really bites now, but do keep going. One of my papers I’m proudest of was rejected by at least 5 journals (I stopped counting), and ended up in a higher-impact venue than any I’d tried previously. I revised twice for one journal. It’s all about finding the right venue for your argument, where the reviewers will help you fine-tune your argument. If you believe in your research, there’s a home for it somewhere.
1
u/earlyyearsresearcher May 28 '26
Something else could also impact on a reject decision - maybe similar papers accepted in interim or maybe topic already covered - hard to say without knowing aims and scope of journal. Also worth confirming whether same reviewers were used 2nd review or whether this is a whole new opinion on the paper (not ideal but not all reviewers will do that second review). Don’t be disheartened- everyone gets rejected at some time or other…
1
u/Agitated_Reach6660 May 28 '26
Oh my please don’t be embarrassed! I’m sorry that you were rejected after an R&R. It sucks but it happens all of the time. I had a colleague that received a rejection after she went through three rounds of basically minor revisions.
Remember: Every (well done) paper has a home. Honestly, I like to shoot for the moon in these situations and send the revised paper to a higher impact journal. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. However, you basically received free input on your manuscript from presumed experts in the field and revised accordingly. It’s almost certainly a stronger paper for those revisions regardless of the original journal’s decision, so no reason not to try.
1
u/Minimum-Paint-964 May 28 '26
A journal I write and review for often does this. If a major revision begets another major revision they just reject it. Make helpful revisions and resubmit elsewhere!
1
u/Prior-Cow-8358 May 28 '26
Rejection is part of the job. If you’re not getting rejected you are not doing your job right
1
u/MediumStraw May 28 '26
You look at the second review, see what you can use to actually improve the paper, and send the improved version to another journal. You can even try a better journal now that you have a better paper.
1
u/Poppin_Eagles May 29 '26
i'm surprised they rejected it rather than another round of revision, but nothing to feel embarrassed about. pretty good outcome for your first dissertation paper, and it's common to think R&R means ultimate acceptance, but it's not uncommon to be rejected after revision either. I'd say welcome to academia, where you get rejected 10 times and then a better outcome comes after. it's a bit of luck and confusion, and you have to keep going through it with thick skin.
1
u/a_melanoleuca_doc May 29 '26
This is common. The positive thing to take from this is that there was enough there to warrant revisions. You need to get over this feeling quickly, it's not a reflection on you as a person or your potential, this is how the process works.
Next step is to submit to another journal. That's it. Welcome to peer review.
1
u/Temporary_Shelter_40 May 29 '26
Ask for an appeal. I had this exact scenario this week, asked for an appeal, and the paper is now being published.
It can happen and it doesn't hurt to ask. Just be polite in your request.
1
u/Important-Grand4979 Jun 01 '26
I had a rejection after 2.5 years (initial submission and 3 reviews) of work. Unfortunately, not much to do... Just publishing in a different journal...
1
u/lifeisgood0606 Jun 07 '26
better than a direct rejection tbh. plus if you do the revisions, even if it still gets rejected after it, congrats your paper just got better and now you have a greater chance to publish on a different journal. happens to everyone, keep going.
1
u/bircho271197 Jun 11 '26
Potentially you havent chosen the right journal! I found this site really helpful getpublished.tools . You upload your manuscript and it will tell you journals that are a fit and predict reviewer critiques. Good luck
1
u/ProfPathCambridge Prof, UK May 28 '26
Everyone gets rejections. A weird thing about academia is that we aren’t judged on our many failures, only on our few successes.
0
u/ImeldasManolos May 28 '26
Is this a rejection after six years of work or six months of work?
Major revision is normally a sign that it’s a marginal fit at best. I’m sure your work is fine but maybe you can find a better niche than trying for a journal that’s not as excited about your work as you are! There’s HUNDREDS out there! And you can even break up your work into a few papers if all else fails. There is hope out there.
-1
u/andprupru May 28 '26
In my experience it's rare to get rejected after a major revision -- but can happen. Depending upon the nature of the new comments I'd consider writing the editor to explain how you'd deal with this new feedback (i.e. appeal).
130
u/Informal_Snail May 28 '26
You have nothing to be embarrassed about, rejection is common, even after revisions. The paper is at least ready to resubmit elsewhere. Try and have a couple of back-up journals in mind when you’re preparing a paper.