I did a research project this past summer, wrote up a review manuscript on the subject, and sent the manuscript to a journal late August.
The editorial office did not reject the manuscript outright (a success). They did send the manuscript to reviewers. Today together with reviewers' comments, I got editors' decision; "Major revision".
In my opinion, "major revision" is not bad at all.
"Accepted" is great, but "major revision" or "minor revision" are fine. We are given an opportunity to improve the manuscript, and we can even borrow knowledge and wisdom from the reviewers to do so.
The reviewers' comments were quite constructive. Some comments really saw through our backstage. Although at a glance these comments may look like there is a lot of work for us to do, in fact they are quite workable. It is a little early for Thanksgiving, but I do appreciate such constructive comments.
I am very happy to (or even excited to) work on the manuscript. I can discuss the contents after the improved manuscript is accepted.
For the great majority of people who do not work in science, here is the scientific publishing process in general;
We authors decide which journal to send our manuscript, considering many factors. When we send a manuscript to a journal, the journal's editors (usually scientists themselves) determine whether they send the manuscript to reviewers/referees, who are knowledgeable scientists working in the field. Based on the reviewers' comments, the editors decide whether they would reject the manuscript, request revision (major or minor) to authors, or accept the manuscript for publication.
Scientists in a field review their peer's works. That is scientific "peer review" system. Reviewers are anonymous, meaning we authors do not and cannot know the identity of the reviewers. That should help maintaining fairness and honesty, and reducing chances of someone holding grudges.
Reviewing is voluntary. Reviewers are not even paid to review a manuscript. Yet, to maintain integrity of this system, when reviewing is solicited, we try our best to provide constructive comments to improve quality of science.
In a broad sense, reviewing is reciprocal. Today someone reviewed my manuscript. Tomorrow I may be reviewing that someone's manuscript without knowing. We know the world is small.
Tomorrow I'll be giving a presentation, then we'll be collecting samples for a project at the collaborator's lab. There are a few collaborative projects going on in our institute this fall. Looking forward to see the results.
