Is it common to change the title of a paper after a major revision?

[patric44]

Hello everyone
I recently submitted a paper to a journal, and got a major revision decision, the two reviewers has some contradicting opinions, one sees a merit in the paper with some changes, and the other hates it with harsh comments that question the conclusion of the paper.
After seeing the comments I realized that some of my conclusions were wrong, while the method and the results are all correct, so I changed the conclusion of the paper: "for example instead of trying to prove that x=5 which imply something, into showing that even if x = 5 it doesn't mean that thing", the paper is now 100% correct, Is it possible to change the orientation of the paper and maybe the title after the major revision decision? What are the chances that the paper get rejected after the major revision if these changes were made?

 

[jedishrfu]

I suspect that, yes, authors would change their paper's title, considering the revisions to be essentially a new paper.

Leaving the title alone after a significant revision might cause some confusion, with readers discussing the paper not realizing that one reader has read the old one while the other has read the new one.

You should check with your journal editor about the practice, asking when and why authors change paper titles.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I think you need to seriously question what this paper's future is.

Referee A said, in effect "perhaps a paper can be published, but not this one." That's what "major revision means".
Referee B (it's always Referee B, isn't it?) said "do not publish"/

What's going to happen if you resubmit? The same referees will see it. They will notice that the conclusions have changed, and if Referee B gets grumpy enough will ask the editor to stop wasting his time with this. They will ask "if his conclusions are all over the map, why is he publishing this? Let him figure out what he wants to say before bothering us".

While the odds of this paper ultimately being published are not zero, neither are they large. Possibly 10%? How much effort do you want to put in?

 

[patric44]

Ironically these modifications actually address all the concerns that reviewer B had, but removed the orientation that reviewer A saw some potential in it, (I also added the all modification he wanted). its like by making all the corrections to make the paper scientifically correct I am loosing reviewer A that liked the paper and stuck with B who hated it ,I hope the editor will appreciate the efforts and the rigorous reply to all the reviewers comments

 

[Vanadium 50]

,I hope the editor will appreciate the efforts

Stop right there.

"But the poor fellow worked so hard!" is not justification for publishing a paper. It is not about you.

I am also puzzled by your ultimate goal. It seems that you see the paper as a goal in and of itself, not conveying a scientific message you can support with evidence. "The conclusions are wrong." "No problem - I will change them!" Huh?

Over the course of my career, I have read a lot of papers, written a lot of papers, and reviewed a lot of papers. I have never seen a paper substantially change its conclusions. Sure, sometimes the last digit might move a little, but the main message is what it was.

While it is a logical possibility that this is a resounding success of the referring process and you started with a crude block of marble and now have Michelangeo's David at the end of the process, this doesn't happen often. Most of the time a troubled paper that is rewrittem is still troubled.

 

[patric44]

Stop right there.

"But the poor fellow worked so hard!" is not justification for publishing a paper. It is not about you.

I am also puzzled by your ultimate goal. It seems that you see the paper as a goal in and of itself, not conveying a scientific message you can support with evidence. "The conclusions are wrong." "No problem - I will change them!" Huh?

Over the course of my career, I have read a lot of papers, written a lot of papers, and reviewed a lot of papers. I have never seen a paper substantially change its conclusions. Sure, sometimes the last digit might move a little, but the main message is what it was.

While it is a logical possibility that this is a resounding success of the referring process and you started with a crude block of marble and now have Michelangeo's David at the end of the process, this doesn't happen often. Most of the time a troubled paper that is rewrittem is still troubled.

why almost all your replies on my posts seems very harsh, you don't know my circumstances or why I need to publish the paper, I am writing this paper for my masters which is mandatory, and almost all my supervisors of no help to me, I almost came up with the idea my self, read some books and various papers consulted some distinguished scientists on the field in other countries some replied and some didn't ... and wrote the paper on my own, revised the paper by my self .... submitted the paper, got a major revision, so its a big deal to me, a little encouragement for young researches will be appreciated.

changing the conclusion part, this is because the findings of the paper seemed like if it was something it isn't (its a very subtle point) and needs an expert in the field to tell why the point lie on that particular part on the graph "loosely speaking". I was tricked by that point, also the supervisors was of no use here, after the harsh comments from the reviewers I basically downloaded almost all the paper on that point, and read them and found out why I was wrong, I found an old paper that talked about this point and corrected the manuscript based on that, what is the wrong in doing that?!

 

[Vanadium 50]

I am writing this paper for my masters which is mandatory, and almost all my supervisors of no help to me,

I concede this is a problem. But it is not the journal's responsibility to fix it.

after the harsh comments from the reviewers I basically downloaded almost all the paper on that point,

And you should have done that before submitting.

You say your university requires a publication to get you degree. So it's an assignment. You did it, and got an F. That's not the referees' fault, and its certainly not mine. The next step is up to you, but tweaking this and that won't make a huge difference. Maybe you can bring it up to a D- and maybe you can't. But you need to think seriously about how to move forward.