The Challenge: When a Major Revision Reveals Structural Debt

The client approached us after receiving a “Major Revision” decision from the European Journal of Finance, a moment familiar to many scholars as both hopeful and daunting. While the paper had passed initial screening, the reviewer comments were technically dense and strategically challenging, questioning the theoretical framing, econometric interpretation, and sample justification.

More concerning than the volume of comments was their nature. The reviewers were not asking for surface-level clarification; they were probing the structural logic of the manuscript. They raised concerns about the causal narrative, the behavioural grounding of the econometric model, and the paper’s alignment with finance – rather than information systems – conversations.

This stage represents what we call “structural debt”: when a manuscript’s core ideas are promising, but its architecture no longer supports the weight of reviewer scrutiny. Without intervention, this kind of debt often leads to desk rejection in subsequent rounds, even after extensive revisions. The challenge was not simply to respond but to rebuild trust with a Tier-1 finance journal audience.

Our first step was a forensic structural audit, treating the reviewer comments not as a checklist, but as a diagnostic tool.

The Forensic Audit: Deconstructing Reviewer Logic and Manuscript Flow

Our first step was a forensic structural audit, treating the reviewer comments not as a checklist, but as a diagnostic tool. We mapped each critique against the manuscript’s theoretical spine, empirical design, and narrative flow.

Several issues emerged:

Narrative misalignment: While the econometric analysis was technically sound, the manuscript leaned on legacy technology-acceptance language that diluted its relevance for finance reviewers. The core contribution was present but obscured.

Under-articulated econometric intent: Reviewers questioned coefficient magnitudes and model fit not because the models were “wrong,” but because the paper failed to clearly explain what the models were designed to show.

Sample vulnerability: The use of IT professionals as respondents raised generalisability concerns. The original manuscript defended the sample defensively, rather than strategically.

Causality signalling: The paper needed clearer boundaries between correlation, behavioural interpretation, and causal inference—especially critical for Tier-1 finance journal publication.

This audit allowed us to distinguish true methodological risk from communicative and structural weaknesses. Importantly, we found that the econometric models themselves did not need to be replaced, but they did need to be hardened for peer review through clearer theoretical justification and disciplined interpretation.

The Hardening Process: Re-Architecting the Manuscript and Response

With the audit complete, we moved into what we call the “hardening” phase.

First, we re-architected the response letter. Rather than reacting line-by-line, we grouped reviewer concerns into thematic blocks—theory, econometrics, sample, and scope. Each response explicitly signalled alignment with European Journal of Finance standards, using the reviewers’ own language where appropriate. This reframed the authors not as petitioners, but as engaged disciplinary peers.

Next, we restructured the manuscript itself:

• The theoretical framing was shifted decisively toward behavioural finance, reducing reliance on technology acceptance models and foregrounding investor psychology.
• Econometric sections were rewritten to emphasise model intent, assumptions, and limits, preventing over-interpretation while strengthening credibility.
• The sample was reframed using lead-user logic, positioning respondents as early adopters rather than a proxy for the general population.
• Claims were tightened to prevent overreach—an essential step in finance manuscript desk-rejection prevention.

Throughout, the goal was not verbosity, but clarity, rigour, and alignment—the triad that Tier-1 journals reward.

The Result: From Reviewer Resistance to Scholarly Confidence

The revised manuscript was resubmitted with a structurally coherent response letter and a hardened argumentative core. The client reported strongly positive feedback, noting that the revised framing “finally spoke the language of finance reviewers.”

Beyond the immediate outcome – a successful resubmission and renewed editorial confidence – the process marked a professional milestone. The scholar moved from reacting to reviewer pressure to strategically engaging with it, gaining a repeatable framework for future submissions.

This case illustrates a central truth of high-stakes publishing: Major revisions are not about fixing papers—they are about fixing structure.