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.)