Types of journal decision explained

In academic publishing, journal decisions describe the editor’s formal outcome after evaluating a manuscript at different stages of the submission process. These decisions are not arbitrary labels — they reflect editorial judgment, reviewer input, journal priorities, and the feasibility of improving the manuscript.

In many journals, especially those with high submission volumes, editors must make feasibility-based decisions in addition to scientific evaluations.

For many authors, journal decisions are confusing, not because of rejection, but because of what the decision actually implies.

Understanding the types of journal decisions helps authors interpret feedback accurately, respond appropriately, and plan their next steps with confidence.

Why Journals Use Different Decision Categories

Editors use structured decision categories to:

• Communicate outcomes consistently
• Reflect the degree of concern about the manuscript
• Indicate whether improvement is realistically possible
• Manage reviewer workload and editorial time

A decision is therefore both an evaluation and a signal about the manuscript’s future at that journal.

Accept: What This Decision Means

Acceptance means the editor is satisfied that:

• Reviewer concerns have been adequately addressed
• The manuscript fits the journal’s scope and standards
• No substantial scientific or ethical issues remain

In practice, outright acceptance without any revisions is rare. Most accepted papers still undergo minor editorial or formatting adjustments before publication.

Accept Pending Minor Revisions

This decision indicates that:

• The manuscript is fundamentally sound
• Requested changes are limited in scope
• No re-evaluation of the core science is required

Examples of minor revisions include:

• Clarifying text
• Correcting references
• Small methodological explanations

Failure to address even minor issues carefully can delay publication.

Major Revision: What Editors Are Really Saying

A major revision decision means the editor believes the paper has potential, but only if substantial issues are resolved.

Typical reasons include:

• Methodological weaknesses that can be corrected
• Insufficient analysis or explanation
• Reviewer disagreement that requires clarification

A major revision is not a rejection, but it is also not a guarantee of acceptance. Editors reassess revised manuscripts carefully, often with the same reviewers.

Revise and Resubmit: A Conditional Opportunity

In some journals, a revise and resubmit does not reserve a publication slot.

“Revise and resubmit” indicates that:

• The manuscript requires extensive changes
• The revised version will be treated as a new evaluation round
• Acceptance depends heavily on how thoroughly concerns are addressed

Some journals classify this separately from major revision because it implies no obligation to accept the revised paper.

Reject After Peer Review

Rejection after peer review typically occurs when:

• Core scientific or conceptual flaws are identified
• Reviewer concerns are fundamental rather than fixable
• The manuscript does not meet the journal’s contribution threshold

Although disappointing, peer-review rejection often provides valuable feedback that can strengthen the paper for submission elsewhere.

Desk Rejection: Decision Without Peer Review

A desk rejection is issued before external review, usually because:

• The manuscript is outside the journal’s scope
• The contribution level is insufficient for the journal
• Basic quality or compliance standards are not met

Desk rejections are usually final and should not be interpreted as a judgment of the research’s overall value.

How Editors Choose Between Revision and Rejection

Editors do not rely solely on reviewer recommendations. Instead, they consider:

• Whether reviewer critiques are well-reasoned and justified
• Whether problems identified are fixable within a reasonable timeframe
• The consistency between reviewer comments and their recommendations
• The journal’s editorial standards and audience expectations

A manuscript may be rejected even if a reviewer recommends revision, or revised despite mixed reviews.

Can a Decision Be Based on One Review?

In some cases, editors may issue a decision based on:

• A single high-quality, detailed review identifying serious flaws
• Clear evidence that additional reviews would not change the outcome

However, poor-quality or superficial reviews are generally not used as the sole basis for decisions.

How Long Each Decision Stage Typically Takes

Timelines vary, but general patterns include:

• Desk rejection: days to a few weeks
• Post-review decisions: several weeks
• Revision decisions: dependent on reviewer availability

Delays do not necessarily indicate negative outcomes.

What Each Journal Decision Means for Your Next Step

Common Misunderstandings About Journal Decisions

• Major revision does not equal acceptance
• Rejection does not mean poor research
• Reviewer recommendations are advisory, not binding
• Editors balance quality, scope, and feasibility

Understanding these distinctions reduces frustration and improves decision-making.

Key Takeaway

Journal decisions are structured outcomes reflecting editorial judgment, reviewer input, and journal priorities. By understanding what each decision type truly means, authors can respond strategically, revise effectively, and move forward with greater clarity.