Major revisions succeed not by adding more content, but by strengthening structure.
I. The Challenge: Navigating a Triple-Reviewer Critique
The manuscript at the center of this case study examined sectoral stock indices and market volatility, using advanced time-series techniques to explore how shocks propagate across financial markets. While the empirical work was sound, the paper entered a critical phase after receiving a “Major Revision” decision from the International Journal of Financial Studies (IJFS), a journal operating at the Q1/Q2 boundary.
The revision letter included three distinct reviewer reports, each raising different—and at times conflicting—concerns. One reviewer focused on narrative clarity, another on methodological rigor, and a third on technical compliance with journal standards. Together, these comments exposed what we call “structural debt”: hidden weaknesses in how the paper’s contribution, model choice, and presentation were aligned.
The stakes were high. A poorly constructed response letter could easily trigger desk rejection in the next round, regardless of the paper’s empirical merit. The researcher needed more than edits—they needed a strategic restructuring that would satisfy all reviewers without diluting the study’s core contribution.
II. The Forensic Diagnostic: Identifying the Gaps
The first step was a forensic diagnostic of the reviewer comments, treating them not as isolated criticisms, but as signals about the journal’s expectations.
Narrative Flow
Reviewer 1 highlighted a lack of clarity in the abstract and introduction, noting that the motivation for selecting specific sectoral indices was not sufficiently grounded in economic relevance. While the results were interesting, the paper did not clearly explain why these indices mattered for understanding market volatility.
Methodological Rigour
Reviewer 2 raised a more serious concern, questioning the reliance on a GARCH (1,1) model. Although the model is well-established in finance, the reviewer demanded a deeper justification for its use and a clearer articulation of how the study advanced existing volatility literature. This critique posed a real risk: without a strong defence, the model choice could be interpreted as routine rather than contribution-driven.
Formatting Nuances
Reviewer 3 focused on technical issues—notation consistency, table formatting, equation labeling, and reference alignment with IJFS templates. While minor individually, these issues collectively signalled a lack of editorial readiness.
The diagnostic phase revealed that the manuscript’s challenges were structural, not substantive. The research was viable, but its architecture needed reinforcement.
The result was not just revision, but hardening—the manuscript became more resilient to scrutiny.
III. The Architectural Fix: Hardening the Manuscript
Re-Anchoring the Introduction
The first intervention involved re-drafting the introduction to foreground the economic significance of the selected sectoral indices. Rather than listing them descriptively, the revised version tied each index to market structure, risk transmission, and investor behaviour—making the research question explicit and compelling.
Defending the Model
The GARCH (1,1) model defence was treated as a forensic exercise. Instead of asserting its validity, the response contextualised the model within volatility literature, clarified its assumptions, and explained why it was appropriate given the data structure and research objective. Limitations were acknowledged transparently, which strengthened credibility rather than weakening it.
Response Engineering
A systematic, point-by-point response strategy was then developed. Each reviewer’s comment was quoted, addressed directly, and cross-referenced to specific manuscript changes. This approach ensured the editor could quickly verify compliance, reducing cognitive load and signaling scholarly discipline.
The result was not just revision, but hardening—the manuscript became more resilient to scrutiny.
IV. The Outcome: A Publication-Ready Blueprint
The final deliverable included a submission-ready manuscript, formatted as a professional template that demonstrated full engagement with all reviewer concerns. Every structural flaw identified during review was addressed, documented, and resolved.
By clearing this “rejection debt,” the researcher moved from a defensive posture to one of scholarly authority. The revised manuscript was no longer vulnerable—it was aligned, rigorous, and editor-ready.
This case illustrates a core principle of high-stakes publishing:
Major revisions succeed not by adding more content, but by strengthening structure.
