Often, no—minor post-review changes are checked by the editor, unless a point needs expert confirmation.
Authors who receive a light revision decision often wonder what happens next. Does the file bounce back to the same referees, or does the handling editor wrap it up in-house? The short answer many journals follow: small fixes are reviewed by the editor, while larger shifts trigger a new round of checks. Actual routing depends on journal policy, the nature of the edits, and the editor’s judgment.
What “Minor” Usually Means In Practice
Across publishers, a light revision commonly includes clarity edits, citation fixes, wording clean-ups, layout or figure touch-ups, and small method notes that do not change the main claims. These items rarely alter results or conclusions. Because the scope is limited, many journals allow the editor to verify the changes directly.
| Publisher/Signal | Typical Handling | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Wiley guidance | Editor often checks minor updates without sending back out | Wiley reviewers page |
| PLOS journals | Light revision is commonly the last step before acceptance | PLOS Medicine process |
| Elsevier configuration | Revision routing can be editor-only or sent back, set per journal | Elsevier help page |
These signals show a common pattern. Editors rely on external review for the first pass, then bring the file home if the requested tweaks are modest. If the response raises fresh technical questions, the editor may ask a reviewer again or ask a new specialist for a quick read.
Do Small Revisions Return To Referees? Common Paths
There is no single route that fits every title. Still, authors tend to see three paths after a light decision.
Path 1: Editor-Only Check
The handling editor reads your point-by-point reply, checks tracked changes, and scans the files for the fixes promised. If everything lines up with the decision letter, the next step is acceptance. This is the most common path for wording tweaks, added context in the intro or discussion, typo fixes, or a short methods clarification. It is also common when reviewers had already stated that they did not need to see the revision again.
Path 2: Targeted Follow-Up With A Reviewer
The editor may send only a specific item to a referee. Think of a brief data check, a statistics sentence, or a reworded claim that touches the results. The goal is to confirm that the change matches the original request. Turnaround is usually faster than a full round because the scope is limited. Turnaround is usually quick overall.
Path 3: Full Second Round
If the edits are more than minor, if new experiments were added, or if one referee had major reservations, the paper can go back for a complete review cycle. This can also happen when the first cycle had mixed reports and the editor needs consensus. In that case the timeline expands, and the status in the system often reverts to “under review.”
How Editors Decide Whether To Send It Back
Editors weigh a short list of questions. Were the points from each report answered directly? Do the changes touch results, statistics, or core methods? Did a referee ask to see the revision? Does the response letter show clear evidence for each fix?
Formal guidance backs this pattern. The Wiley reviewer guide notes that small updates are often assessed by the editor rather than sent out again. PLOS describes a light decision as a final step before acceptance, which aligns with the idea that only narrow issues remain. Journals using Editorial Manager or similar platforms can also configure whether revisions route to the prior editor chain or back to referees.
Field-By-Field Differences
Biomedicine and clinical titles tend to ask for detailed reporting and data sharing checks at the revision stage. Even when the label reads minor, an editor may ask a statistical reviewer for a short pass. In math and theoretical fields, a light decision often means text edits and added citations, so editor-only checks are common. Engineering journals sit between these patterns; a small methods tweak can still require a specialist to look.
Broad-scope journals that publish large volumes often rely on clear internal rules for routing. Society journals that lean on volunteer boards may route back more often because the associate editor wants the original referee to confirm a fix.
When Editors Send It Back By Policy
Many publishers document peer review steps in public pages. Two useful signals: reviewer guides and editorial workflows. One reviewer guide states that light updates are typically checked by the editor. A separate workflow page from a large open-access family shows minor decisions as the step before acceptance, which implies that only small checks remain. For ethics and transparency, see the COPE guidance for peer reviewers.
Because some platforms let journals set routing rules per title, the safest reading is this: if a decision letter ties fixes to clarity, citation, or layout, the editor likely handles it in-house; if the request touches results or claims, a short check is more likely. If a report says “I wish to see the revision,” the file often returns to that referee even when the label is minor.
Template For A Point-By-Point Reply
A well-structured response letter makes the editor’s life easy and reduces the need for a new round. Use this simple template.
Header Block
Start with the manuscript title, number, and decision date. Thank the editor and referees. State that you are submitting a revision and a tracked-changes file.
Per-Comment Format
- Quote the comment in italics or a shaded box.
- Reply in plain text, one paragraph per item.
- Point to page and line numbers for each change.
- Paste key sentences you rewrote when helpful.
- Add brief citations when you defend a choice.
Closing Block
List any new files added, such as a data link or a small figure. Confirm that authorship, ethics statements, and funding notes are unchanged unless you were asked to update them.
Common Pitfalls That Trigger Another Round
- Bundling large rewrites into a light update.
- Skipping a referee’s item or giving a vague reply.
- Adding new claims in the discussion without evidence.
- Uploading mismatched files or broken figure links.
- Changing the abstract without mirroring edits in the main text.
Clean files and clear mapping beat speed. If a change needs more time, send a short note to the editor before the deadline and ask for an extension. Editors prefer a solid package to a rushed upload.
Timeframes You Can Expect
Light updates can move to a decision in days or a few weeks. A targeted check adds days to a couple of weeks. A full second round takes longer. Load, holidays, and the need to recruit a new referee can stretch the wait.
| Trigger | Likely Route | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Tiny text edits, references, style | Editor-only | Match with a clean letter and tracked file |
| Short stats sentence or small figure fix | Targeted check | One referee or board member reviews the fix |
| New analysis that shifts claims | Full second round | All referees weigh in again |
| Mixed first-round reports | Full second round | Editor seeks consensus |
| Referee asked to see revision | Targeted check or full round | Depends on scope of new material |
Frequently Misread Signals
A status that reads “reviewers assigned” does not always mean a long wait. Some editors send a quick query to a single referee for a narrow check. An “editor assigned” label after a light decision often means the associate editor is giving the file a final pass.
Posts on author forums share wide ranges for these labels. Workflows differ by field and journal, so treat them as hints, not as a clock.
Sample Timeline From Revision To Acceptance
Week 0: Upload the files, including a tracked-changes document and the point-by-point reply. Status shows “with editor.”
Week 1–2: Editor reads the package. If the fixes are small, the next label is “decision in process.” If a narrow check is needed, the status can shift to “under review” for a short spell.
Week 2–4: A targeted check returns. The editor checks that the last point is closed. If the file needs tiny formatting tweaks, you may get a brief request through the system.
Week 4+: Final decision. Some titles post acceptance letters faster; others bundle acceptance with a light production check. Schedules vary by field and season, so treat this as a rough sketch.
What To Do While You Wait
Use the window to prepare data and code for sharing, tidy figure sources, and update your author contribution text. If you promised a data deposit, line that up. Draft the submission letter for the next step in case the editor asks for a small extra tweak.
Checklist Before You Resubmit
Resolve Every Point Cleanly
Map your reply one-to-one with the reports. If a reviewer raised five items, your letter has five clear sections. If two referees asked for the same change, show how the single edit covers both.
Keep Claims In Sync With The Evidence
Trim bold language if the new analysis narrows the effect size. Align the abstract, main text, and figures with the revised wording.
Make Life Easy For The Editor
Use clear filenames, label figures and tables consistently, and check metadata. If your revision includes a data link, make it public or view-only so the editor can verify access without a request.
Bottom Line For Authors
Most light decisions do not leave the editor’s desk. They move forward when your response is clear, the edits stay within the original scope, and no referee requested to see the changes. When a point touches methods, results, or claims, a short check is common. A full loop returns when the changes reshape the paper. Plan your package with those routes in mind and you’ll shorten the path to acceptance.