system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Has anyone had major revisions requested after fixing minor?

I submitted a paper several months ago and recieved a response of "Based on the advice received, I have decided that your manuscript can be accepted for publication after you have carried out the corrections as suggested by the reviewer(s)." The minor revisions were to simply fix a graph and the formatting of my references (which I did and submitted, admittedly a few days late because I didn't see the deadline in the email - 100% my fault).

Today I received an email stating that major revisions were required from 3 reviewers! All I can think of is that this is some kind of punishment for submitting my revisions late. I've never had this happen before and I feel like a cold bucket of ice has been dumped on my head.

Has this ever happened to any of you? How did you deal?
gpt
This can happen, either because when you made the minor changes, the reviewer (sometimes because of the minor changes, sometimes just because they had a changed point of view) saw a flaw they've not seen before. More scrutiny = more chance of weaknesses to be seen. Maybe they weren't thorough the first time around, or maybe they misunderstood the graph and after you've changed it they "got it" and then there was an issue that they didn't see before because they misunderstood. 

Or, what's more likely, the previous reviewer(s) weren't available to review again (because they do it in their free time for free) and the editor had to enlist new reviewers, who looked at the paper fresh and they've seen issues the others didn't. 

&#x200B;

It's surely not a penalty for submitting late. Remember, the peer-review process is not to judge you as a researcher, or to make sure you get through, or to make sure to publish something, but rather, the peer review process aims to prevent the publication of flawed research, - and as we're all human all of our research is inherently flawed because we see it from our own perspective with only our own expertise. Enlisting more experts means more scrutiny, and that typically means they will find more. That is good for science, but it can be rather depressing for the individual. Don't take it personal. It's all about making sure the science that gets out is thoroughly tested!