If an article needs major revisions, how should it be handled?

Major revisions require authors to comprehensively address reviewer feedback and resubmit the amended manuscript after extensive modification. This process is feasible and common in academic publishing. Authors must carefully analyze all reviewer comments and editor instructions to identify required modifications. The revisions should prioritize addressing critical methodological flaws, expanding literature reviews, reanalyzing data, or restructuring arguments. Applicable to manuscripts with significant deficiencies but salvageable contributions, this stage necessitates adherence to journal timelines and thoroughness to avoid additional review cycles. Authors should systematically respond to each critique without introducing new errors. To implement major revisions, authors first analyze feedback to distinguish mandatory changes from suggestions. They then revise the manuscript iteratively: rewriting sections, incorporating new evidence, refining analysis, and enhancing clarity. Key steps involve drafting a detailed point-by-point response letter explaining revisions, cross-referencing altered text, and performing final checks before resubmission. Handling this effectively significantly boosts publication prospects and demonstrates scholarly rigor.