Hi Amir, this is a good question, and I've also asked myself that a few times! The conclusion that I am happy to share is based on "Satisficing". If it is an article for a journal, each revision should make the paper better suited for the journal you are submitting to. Once it reaches an acceptable standard, then it should be accepted. If not, and if I'm tired of making revisions, I will just withdraw it to resubmit to another journal. No hard feelings :)

The second part pertains to being a reviewer, personally I dislike being pressured to review any article, unless it's a paid job, for obvious reasons. It will also be the cause of diminishing return, so it's possible that the quality of feedback will be lower over time. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to share my thoughts :)

Thanks @Keong

Amir Karimi

Dear Professor,

Thank you for initiating this topic of discussion.

As far as I know, there are no fixed rules and regulations regarding this matter. I personally revise my articles three or four times before final submission to a journal. However, this may vary from person to person.

Best regards,

Anamitra.

🔁 Is a large number of revisions good or bad?

Pros of multiple revisions (e.g., 5–6 rounds):

• Can significantly improve clarity, robustness, and structure.
• Enables authors to address complex or conflicting feedback in stages.
• Shows the authors’ commitment to quality and adaptability.

Cons:

• Risk of diminishing returns after a certain point—authors may keep tweaking language or details with little gain.
• Article may drift from its original scope, especially if new questions are introduced late.
• Can lead to reviewer fatigue or inconsistent judgments if new reviewers come in midway.
• Delays publication and frustrates both authors and readers.

Verdict: A few well-structured rounds (ideally 2–3, sometimes 4) are usually sufficient. More than 5 should be rare and typically mean either:

• The initial submission wasn’t ready.
• The editorial process isn’t well-directed.
• The reviewers or editors are not aligned on expectations.

If it reaches 6+ rounds, the editor should step in to guide a decision (accept, reject, or request a final revision with clear boundaries).

👥 Is using 6–8 reviewers per round appropriate?

Short answer: No, usually not.

Why:

• 2–3 carefully selected reviewers are sufficient in most fields.
• 4 reviewers can be used if cross-disciplinary expertise is needed.
• More than 4 can lead to conflicting feedback, overwhelm the authors, and dilute focus.

When 6–8 reviewers might be justifiable:

• For high-impact journals or interdisciplinary works.
• In major special issues where multiple layers of expertise are necessary.
• If you rotate reviewers between rounds (not all 6–8 at once).

But for a single round, having 6–8 simultaneously is typically excessive unless carefully managed.

⏳ Is it appropriate to pressure reviewers to review earlier?

Depends on what you mean by "pressure."

What is appropriate:

• Set clear deadlines upfront (2–4 weeks is standard).
• Send one or two polite reminders close to the due date.
• Maintain transparency about the review timeline with authors and reviewers.
• Offer flexibility for delays with notice.

What to avoid:

• Frequent emails or short deadlines.
• Guilt-tripping or public shaming (e.g., in editorial systems).
• Creating the perception that speed matters more than quality.

Good practice:

• Build a reviewer pool that is reliable and diverse.
• Use incentives: e.g., acknowledgment, certificates, or Publons/ORCID credit.

✅ Summary Recommendations:

• Limit revisions to 2–4 rounds unless there's a compelling reason.
• Limit reviewers to 2–3 per round; possibly 4 if needed.
• Revisions should build toward acceptance—not restart the evaluation process each time.
• Editors should lead decisively to prevent endless revision cycles.
• Set firm but reasonable deadlines for reviewers and maintain respect for their time.

Thanks Nicholas Renaldo

Thanks Anamitra Roy

At least two revisions are recommended — starting with a major revision, followed by a minor one.

Thanks Elvis Ndalammbi

At least two revision

It all depends on the quality of the paper and whether the author can fully respond to the reviewers' initial feedback/comments. For instance, our first paper "The Difference Female Teachers Make: Analysis of Girls' School Achievement in Nepal" (published in Educational Studies, AESA) received a major revision verdict, but did not have to go through another round of revision. One of my latter papers went through four to five rounds of revisions, and each time the editor of the journal introduced to me a new reviewer! Wasn't that frustrating? In my understanding, the editor, who was an expert in the field, did not have confidence in the first few reviewers' feedback/comments, therefore s/he kept on adding a new reviewer until s/he was fully satisfied with the paper. My guess is that the initial reviewers were lesser known experts in the field. I hope this helps!

many thanks Puskar Joshi

The number of revisions for an article varies, typically ranging from one to three major rounds in peer-reviewed journals, followed by minor edits, depending on the quality of the submission, reviewer feedback, and journal standards.

I am confident that each revision contributes in improving the overall quality of the article paper and enhances its suitability.