You open the editor’s email and the decision reads “minor revisions”. It is the best outcome you can get short of acceptance itself. The journal has already decided it wants your paper, and what remains is a list of fixes the editor considers small. There is no third reviewer waiting and no new round of analyses ahead.
Even so, some papers fall at this stage. Not because the changes are hard, but because the author relaxes: a request goes unanswered, a table gets edited and a number in the abstract does not, or the reply is dashed off the night before the deadline. When that happens, the editor writes a second letter, and the second letter no longer sounds like “nearly accepted”.
This guide explains what the decision means, how it differs from major revisions, what is usually requested at this stage, how to organise your response, and what to check before you resubmit.
It is a conditional decision: the journal will accept the paper if you make the changes requested. You will also see it written as “accept with minor revisions” or, in some systems, “conditional acceptance”. In practice it tells you that the reviewers and the editor found nothing that calls the conclusions into question. What they found is room to improve the wording, the reporting or the presentation.
What sits behind the label is fairly predictable: clarify a paragraph in the method, add a descriptive statistic that is missing, fix a table number, complete a reference, soften a sentence in the discussion that claims more than the data show, or add a limitation. These are editing requests, not research requests.
Two cautions. First, the editor applies the label, not the weight of each comment. A reviewer can write “minor” and ask for something that takes a week, so read the comments and not only the decision. Second, minor revisions is not acceptance. Until the formal acceptance email arrives the decision can change, and when it does it is usually because of how the author responded.
The practical difference is what the editor does with your revised version. After major revisions the paper usually goes back to the reviewers, who may ask for another round. After minor revisions many journals let the editor decide alone, comparing your response with the list of changes, without sending it back to anyone.
That changes how you write the response. In a second round with reviewers you are persuading someone who may still disagree. After minor revisions you are showing a busy editor, at a glance, that you did what was asked and that nothing is outstanding. Clarity counts for more than argument.
It changes the calendar too. Deadlines for minor revisions are often shorter than for major ones (commonly two to four weeks, against two or three months), and missing one can turn a near-certain acceptance into a fresh submission at some journals. Check the date in the email and, if you need more time, ask for an extension before the deadline, not after.
Nearly every minor-revision request falls into one of five families. Sort them before you start, because each is handled differently and some hide more work than they seem to.
Even when the changes are minor, write the response letter. Some authors assume the corrected file is enough; almost every journal also asks for a document listing what you did. And if they do not, an editor who decides alone appreciates a table that saves opening the manuscript to check each point.
The structure that works is the one used for longer rounds, only shorter: each comment, quoted verbatim; beneath it, your answer in a sentence or two; and the exact location of the change, with page and paragraph or the line number if the journal numbers lines. Quoting the comment as written shows you have not reworded it in your favour. Saying where the change is spares the editor a search.
Two rules prevent the silliest rejection. Answer every comment, including those you think you have already dealt with elsewhere, even if only with “Done, see page 8.” An unanswered point is the number-one reason an acceptance with minor changes turns into a second round. And if you disagree with something, do not ignore it in silence: give one polite sentence and one reason, and if you can, change something in the text that prevents the misunderstanding. Our guide to writing a response to reviewers covers the letter format and works the same for small changes.
Reviewer 1: “Please clarify how the total score on the scale was computed and how items with missing responses were handled.”
Response: “Thank you. We have added to the Measures section (page 7, paragraph 2) that the total score is the sum of the ten items and that participants with more than two blank items were excluded (n = 6). These six cases were already in the flow diagram, whose caption now says so.”
Three sentences: thank without flourish, say what was done, say where, and show the change is consistent with the rest of the manuscript. It is all an editor needs to close the point.
The risk at this stage is not the changes you make but the ones you cause without meaning to. Correcting a table moves a mean; adding a limitation makes the discussion contradict a line in the abstract; redoing a figure in the text and not in the abstract leaves two versions of the same number. A reviewer reading the new version looks straight at those spots, because they are the only things that changed.
Run through this short list before you send:
In the usual scenario the editor checks your response within days or a few weeks and sends a formal acceptance. Proofs follow, and with them the last chance to fix typographical errors; it is not the moment to change content. If the editor asks for anything more it is usually specific and settled in days.
If something goes wrong it is nearly always one of three things: a comment left unanswered, a figure that no longer agrees, or a missed deadline. All three are avoided with an hour of final checking before you press submit. It is the best-spent hour of the whole process.
It means the journal intends to accept the paper if you make the changes. It is not a formal acceptance and it can change if your response leaves points unaddressed or introduces new problems while correcting. In practice, the large majority of papers given minor revisions are accepted when the author responds carefully.
Almost always, yes. Many journals require one in the submission system, and even when they do not, a comment-by-comment table is the fastest way for the editor to confirm everything was done. A short, well-organised letter is enough.
It depends on the journal and the decision email says so. For minor revisions, two to four weeks is common. If you cannot meet the date, ask for an extension before it passes; it is a normal request and is usually granted.
Yes, as long as you give a reason and do not ignore it. Say in one sentence why you keep your version and, if you can, change something in the text so another reader is not confused in the same way. What does not work is leaving the comment unanswered.
After minor revisions it often does not: the editor decides alone, comparing your response with the list of changes. It is not a rule, though; some journals send the revised version back to a reviewer who asked for more substantial changes. Write the response as if that reviewer will read it.
Reject and resubmit is a rejection with the door left open: the current manuscript is not accepted, but the journal would look at a heavily reworked version. Minor revisions is a yes conditional on small fixes. The two decisions are opposite in nature.