Free scoping read. A written assessment of your manuscript in two business days, at no cost.

Start one
Contents

On this page

  1. Stages of the revision cycle
  2. Required content of the response letter
  3. Multiple revision rounds as a normal part of peer review

Academy · Concepts & Definitions · Revision cycle flow

The Revision Cycle: The Process Between a ‘Major Revision’ Decision and a Final Outcome

A ‘major revision’ decision does not conclude peer review; it initiates a second cycle, the course of which depends on the editor’s handling of the response and on whether reviewers are invited to re-review.

Pubrica AcademyWritten by a journal operations specialist Reviewed byan editorial consultant Published10 October 2026 Last checked10 October 2026 Reading time7 minutes Sources1 peer-reviewed

Following a revise decision, the typical cycle proceeds as follows: the authors prepare a point-by-point response and a revised manuscript; the editor checks whether the response addresses the concerns raised; and the editor then returns the revision to the original reviewers, makes the decision directly or, in some cases, invites an additional reviewer, before issuing a further decision.

Learning objectives

  • The standard stages of a revision cycle following a ‘revise’ decision.
  • The content a point-by-point response letter requires in order to be usable by an editor.
  • Why a second or third revision round is a normal outcome rather than an indication of a failing manuscript.

Common misconceptions

  • “A major revision decision is close to a rejection.” Major revision is explicitly one of the standard outcome categories, alongside accept, minor revision and reject; it indicates that the paper remains in the review process rather than being abandoned.
  • “Re-review is automatic.” Whether a revised manuscript returns to the original reviewers, is decided by the editor alone, or is sent to a new reviewer depends on the journal and the nature of the requested changes; it is an editorial decision rather than a fixed rule.

Stages of the revision cycle

Following a revise decision, the typical sequence is: authors receive the decision letter with reviewer comments; authors revise the manuscript and prepare a point-by-point response addressing each comment; authors resubmit both documents; the handling editor checks whether the response is complete and whether re-review is needed; if re-review is needed, the editor sends the revision back to some or all of the original reviewers, or occasionally to a new reviewer; reviewers reassess and report; the editor issues a further decision — accept, another round of revision, or, less commonly at this stage, reject.

Required content of the response letter

A usable point-by-point response letter restates each reviewer comment, explains what was changed (with a specific location in the revised manuscript, such as a page or line reference) or explains why no change was made if the authors disagree with a point, and does so for every comment raised — leaving a comment unaddressed is one of the most common reasons editors send a response letter back for completion before even sending it to reviewers.

Multiple revision rounds as a normal part of peer review

A second or even third revision round is a normal outcome of substantive peer review, not evidence that the manuscript is failing; it typically reflects either genuinely substantial requested changes (such as new analyses) or a reviewer raising a new point in response to how the authors addressed the first round. The essential requirement for authors is to respond completely and specifically at each round, since an incomplete or vague response is what most often extends the cycle further than necessary.

Key points

Key points

A revise decision initiates a cycle of response letter, resubmission, editorial check, possible re-review and further decision. Whether further rounds occur, and how many, depends on the editor’s judgement of the response rather than on a fixed journal rule.

Practical application

Practical application

  1. Every reviewer comment should be addressed in the response letter, including those with which the authors disagree. The reasoning for declining a change should be explained rather than the comment omitted, because an incomplete response letter is a common cause of delay.
  2. The specific location of each change should be given. The page, section or line number at which each requested change was made in the revised manuscript should be cited, rather than only a general description.
  3. Authors should anticipate, and allow time for, a possible second round. Additional time should be built into any external deadline (such as a grant report or thesis submission) to allow for more than one revision cycle.

Frequently asked questions

No — major revision is a standard outcome category distinct from rejection, and many papers that receive a major-revision decision are eventually accepted after revision.

Yes — a well-reasoned, specific explanation for not making a requested change is an accepted part of the response-letter process, as long as every comment is addressed one way or the other.

The handling editor makes this decision, considering the nature and extent of the requested changes.

References

  1. Wiley Author Services. Peer review process and timeline. read 10 October 2026. View Wiley Author Services guidance

Every source above is a peer-reviewed article, a publisher’s record of one, or a standard issued by the body that owns it. Each carries the date it was last read. Where a standard moves, this article is revised rather than left up with a note.

How to cite this article

Pick your referencing style and copy it. Your university or target journal may vary the punctuation — check its guide if it has one.

Pubrica Academy. (2026, October 10). The Revision Cycle: The Process Between a ‘Major Revision’ Decision and a Final Outcome. Pubrica. https://pubrica.com/academy/flowcharts/peer-review-revision-cycle-flow/

This article is written to be learned from. Cite it if you are referring to what it says; if you are using the evidence behind it, cite the sources listed above instead.

Response-letter checklist

Run through this before resubmitting.

[ ] Every reviewer comment restated
[ ] Every comment has either a described change or a reasoned explanation for no change
[ ] Each change has a specific location reference in the revised manuscript
[ ] Response letter is organised by reviewer, then by comment number
[ ] Revised manuscript and response letter reviewed together for consistency

Pubrica AcademyWritten and maintained by Pubrica’s subject matter experts. Articles are revised when the underlying standards change, and each article states the date on which it was last reviewed.

How Pubrica can help

Pubrica assists authors in drafting complete point-by-point response letters with specific references to each change, providing editors with the information required to progress a revision without delay.

Submit an enquiry Get help with your response letter

Explore

Related Academy articles

Selected from the same topic and category, with the most recent first.

Article

Responding to reviewer comments: a point-by-point rebuttal framework

How to structure a rebuttal an editor can adjudicate, including what to concede and what to defend.

11 September 2026 · 9 min read

Checklist

Before you respond to reviewers

Every comment numbered, every change located, every disagreement evidenced.

10 October 2026 · 6 min read

Example

Annotated rebuttals

A real objection answered two ways, with the reasoning for each marked in the margin.

10 October 2026 · 6 min read

Find something else

Search the Pubrica Academy

Access is free and requires no account. Enter a topic, or open the full library to filter by category, sub-topic or resource type.

Review of the point-by-point response before resubmission

A scoping assessment is free and takes two business days. It provides a written assessment of what the work requires and which specialist would undertake it.

Get a free quote Ask about your own case
Get a free quote

Regulations

Check your project against this rule

  1. 1Your work
  2. 2Your details
  3. 3Send
What do you need?

Material you send is held under signed confidentiality, with access limited to the assigned team and encrypted transfer. It is not used to train anything and is not passed to third-party tools. Ask for the agreement before you send anything you would rather cover first.