Among the decisions that arrive at the end of peer review, the most confusing pair is "major revision" and "reject and resubmit". Both say "fix your paper and bring it back"; but the mechanism behind them and the work they put on you are completely different. Before you see the word "reject" and panic, it helps to know what this decision actually means. This guide explains what reject and resubmit is, how it differs from major revision, and what to do when you get one.
What is reject and resubmit?
"Reject and resubmit" is a decision saying the paper is not accepted in its current form, but the editor is open to reconsidering it as a new submission after a substantial revision. So the paper leaves consideration today and the file closes — but the door doesn't shut completely.
This differs from an outright rejection: in a straight reject the editor says "we won't publish this here" and there's no way back. In reject and resubmit there's an explicit invitation.
How it differs from major revision
Both decisions ask for substantial changes, but they diverge in process:
| Major revision | Reject and resubmit | |
|---|---|---|
| Manuscript ID | Stays the same | Gets a new number |
| Process | Continues uninterrupted | File closes, restarts from scratch |
| Reviewers | Usually the same reviewers | Usually new reviewers |
| Editorial commitment | Keeps managing the process | No commitment to acceptance |
| The "clock" | Keeps running | Resets |
In short: a major revision is a managed editorial process; reject and resubmit is a fork in the road — you can return to the same journal with a substantial revision, or take it to another journal.
Why does an editor give this decision?
Editors usually give it when they see publishable potential in the paper but aren't sure whether the scale of required changes can be completed in a single revision round. In some journals it's also an administrative choice. In both cases the message is the same: "There's something in this work; but it needs a significant rebuild."
What should you do if you get one?
1. See it as good news. This isn't a failure but a conditional second chance — the editor explicitly left you a way back.
2. Revise thoroughly. Take every reviewer comment seriously; superficial fixes lead to a fresh rejection. This calls for the same rigour as handling a major revision.
3. Write a detailed response letter. Since new reviewers will likely see your resubmission, include a response-to-reviewers letter that clearly explains what you changed and why — a road map for both old and new readers.
4. Return within a reasonable time. There's no strict deadline, but coming back while the editor's and the field's interest is fresh works in your favour.
Remember: the word "reject" here doesn't mean "end of the road." If the editor didn't want to see your paper again, they wouldn't have issued the resubmit invitation at all. Treat it as a door.
Turning the decision into an opportunity
Reject and resubmit is often a chance both to make the paper stronger and to reconsider whether it's matched to the right journal. If you're thinking of going to a different journal rather than returning to the same one, Peerfect's free journal recommendation engine puts alternative journals matching your paper's scope in front of you — so you invest your revision effort in the best possible target.
In short: reject and resubmit is a decision to read as "I have a second chance," not "I was rejected." Its difference from major revision is in the process mechanics — new ID, new reviewers, a reset clock. Revise thoroughly, come back with a strong response letter, and use the invitation to genuinely improve your paper.
Sources: Major Revision vs Resubmit — Manusights, Should You "Revise and Resubmit"? — The Scholarly Kitchen, Publishing in a scholarly journal: peer review — APA. Decision names and process vary from journal to journal; what's binding is the guidance written in the editor's decision.