Major revisions or minor revisions? That is the question…

There is an increasing tension around the question of the distinction between major and minor revision decisions on papers.

When I started as an academic, there seemed to be a fairly consistent view among those with experience, that a major revision required more research (not necessarily empirical work), whereas a minor revision required only editing. Over the years, I have come to realize that minor is a bit of a misnomer, since it could require extensive work to the paper. I have had frequent differences of opinion to resolve between authors and referees, often because of their differing perceptions of what was meant by these two categories of major and minor. For example, one correspondent suggested that the distinction is based on likely turnaround time; if the required work is achievable in a matter of weeks, it’s minor, otherwise it’s major.

What are your views on this question?

(All comments are moderated, so may not appear immediately.)


About Will

Professor of Construction Management and Economics, University of Reading, UK. Editor-in-Chief, Construction Management and Economics (1992-2016). Programme Director, MSc Construction Management. School Director of Postgraduate Teaching Programmes.
This entry was posted in CM&E forum, Editorial policies and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s