I am reviewing a paper for the first time. The authors performed 9 numerical simulations, each evaluated at 9 parameter values. The current list of corrections includes about 10 typographical errors, and a requirement that the authors add 4 additional ‘special’ values for each simulation and discuss how the results for these special values differ from the original values (they are special for a reason).
Should this revision be classified as minor or major?
Comments
If it is about some typos and adding some information about their calculations seems like minor revisions.
First off, I’m an experimentalist. However, what does the inclusion of these special values change in the simulation? Does it provide enhanced clarity that improves or changes the conclusion? Or is it a special case that falls outside the basic scope of the investigation?
I generally score it as a major revision when new simulations or experiments are required. It is easy for this to rise to the level of requesting an additional study that falls outside the initial scope. An example from my area – DFT simulations of the properties of a particular crystalline structure of a material. Changing the density and structure of the material (e.g crystalline quartz vs amorphous fused silica) are only small changes, but would entail an entire separate study.
If the revision requires new data, analysis or writing where success is uncertainty, it’s a major revision. If there is little risk of any of the revisions failing and it doesn’t involve a huge amount of writing, minor.
From what you said, I would go minor but it doesn’t really matter IMO. My standard is :
– Accept : never happend on first submission.
– The paper is publishable as is but I have a few suggestions : Minor
– The paper is good but lacking key elements : Major
– The paper is bad but I guess I can see a version that could be publishable if they do a major overhaul : Major
– The paper has no redeemable qualities : Reject.
In general, IMO, anything that can be fixed in less than a week can be minor. If you are asking for more results, then it is a major because that could take more than a week.
If they need to redo experiments, major revision. If it’s jsut text, minor revision. That’s my go to answer for this
It sounds like minor revisions to me. But are reviewers required to explicitly state what category of revision they are suggesting?
In my experience it’s usually the editor making a judgement based on the combined comments of all reviewers. Maybe it depends on the field (I’m in biology).