if all amendments and additions have been done accordingly as reviewer asked, the reviewer has to accept the article

I can't see why a reviewer couldn't make further suggestions. It would be though down to the editor and author whether they want to take them into consideration. If a reviewer is giving you constructive feedback and his/her comments might improve your manuscript, why would you not at least consider them?

After doing all the amendments requested by reviewer, and after sending the article back to the editor; I think the reviewers do not have the right to request new amendments to the article. However, if I feel/noticed that the new requests will enhance the paper further, I will accept them.

The reviewer has to work out a clear bilance before his/her statements. The author has the right to be handled fairly.

It often happens that the reviewer at first reading gives your suggestions. And this is all normal. However, after accede author of the article and taking into account the suggestions coming information on second reading and subsequent often differ from the previous suggestion more comments on that earlier reviewer did not even noticed, or it does not dazzled and do not interfere. So it seems to me that it was a little strange. Naogół reviewer has 30 days to express their opinion. And this is the time required to read and familiarize yourself with the problem addressed. Then has another 30 days during which begins to see other nuances often really irrelevant. Such activities opuźniają time of publication. Well if there are only two readings, but we know that in journals with high IF, these readings is sometimes three and four. In this case, the process of submission to publication takes almost a year. Although there are those in which the reviewer before it goes to a good few months passed, and then the positive Review Guidelines article has its mellow, because there is a long waiting list.

Every author writes an article for a specific aim, defined at the beginning. If a correction helps meet that aim, then the author should accept it.  There comes a point, however, that new suggested corrections overshoot the original aim.  That is when the author must decide that the new corrections do not help him and he should send his manuscript elsewhere.  Incidentally, in all my long career as a published researcher, I have never had my articles, once revised, corrected once again. I am sure that this is a rare occurrence.

I think that the reviewer should have read the paper carefully from the first time, and she/he ca not change or request any additional amendments.

Hi,

I think they should not be allowed to make new amendment unless it is very necessary and this should be restricted by some kind of regulation.Already the publication of a paper take long time.

Dear Mahfuz - If the reviewer asks for new additions or amendments, then the publication of the article will be delayed a lot. Once the reviewer takes a decision and gives his/her recommendations on the article, it is not ethically right to request for new additions or amendments. This will create a big burden for the Editor (as the review process will be stretched more than needed) and especially more for the Author (as the publication of the article is delayed). There is also a risk of authors avoiding sending their papers to such journals as their publications may get delayed!!

With regards, Sundar

As Hanno stated, the author has an expectation to be treated fairly. It should be obvious if the reviewer is helpful or obstructive. An author should embrace helpful comments and requirements that will strengthen the final publication. An author should reject a review that obviously is delaying publication without an increase in quality.

I believe it is possible to find flaws in any published work. Therefore, at some point in time the editor must be brave enough to draw the line and publish an article that has been accepted for publication. The authors bare the risk of criticisms once the work is published. After a certain point, requests for major changes are unreasonable.

First of all, when a paper is reviewed, the reviewer make a set of suggestions to the authors. Similarly, as a standard, two reviewers would review the article. At this point, the reviewer reads the article carefully made all the changes that he want to see in the article. Some one who is knowledgeable, someone who is experienced, will never ask for more changes on a manuscript that he has already reviewed and identified the area of weakness. 

Let us take this example. The reviewer has suggested something. Then the author misinterpreted his request or the changes that he has made is not to the satisfaction of the reviewer, he could still request for additional changes. This is always acceptable. There is nothing wrong about it. Similarly, I have many publications. In some cases, the reviewer ask me to change certain thing, which I have refused, but has given the reason why I didn't adhere to his suggestion. This is also acceptable.

I have reviewed for 25 different journals. I have reviewed once. When the authors make changes and it routed back to me, I have refused due to lack of time. It will be send out to others. They could request for change. Similarly, I have reviewed many revisions (but I haven't done the primary review for papers, but only seen the revisions). I have made several suggestions for the paper that I was a secondary reviewers.

Have you ever come across receiving reviewer comments with conflicting views? How would you address in your revision? At some point, there are compromises has to be made. There are certain sections can be deleted, added, modified, fine tuned, etc. 

I hope everyone getting the point!!!

As an author, reviewer, editor, and as an editor-in-chief, I have dealt with almost all sort of issues related to manuscript reviews!

http://pandi-perumal.blogspot.com

That depends on the editor. If editor sends back the revised manuscript to reviewers, they can definitely make new comments on it.

yes, the editor can suggest some corrections based on her/his assessments of the manuscript. ones you receive the  corrections you may refuse them advice the publishers accordingly.

I think the reviewer may recommend, but not require additions to the work. The final decision belongs to the author. If the paper is rejected for any reason, you may consider why.

At the same time any paper is not completely full. There is always something to be done. At the same time it is only a paper of ten pages, it is not a thesis or monograph. So, the reviewer has the right to propose, and the author to decide whether accept or not. The author can be argued, refusing change.

I've had cases to refuse recommended changes and this was accepted as a final option.

Dear Valentina

I am fully agreed with your nice opinion.

I highly appreciate your contribution Valentina. I think the reviewer may recommend, but not require additions to the work. You have a good point.

I think during the review process both the reviewer and the editor must try their possible best to point out all the necessary corrections the author should do. That is the reason why some time is set aside purposely for the review process.

However, no one is perfect so if the paper has not been published yet  and there is still an important correction that has to be done, the reviewer can still point it out to the editor. The editor can then take a decision on it to see whether is important for the author to make additional amendments or not. This is because the ultimate aim of any journal is to publish high quality papers to get much recognition and a broad readership base. 

I cannot see why s/he cannot, dear Mahfouz, if the purpose is to make the article better! I do this myself in some cases on second thought!

Dear Mawran and Andrei,

the iterative process of learning and improvement should be performed before sending a paper for review. The colleques and tutors are the typical crew to be involved. Otherwise the reviewers construct the publication. It´s self evident that a  thorough and scientific review and the proposal for corrections can lead to improvements, but in one cyle only.

I agree with many points cited during this discussion, but remember also that you are THE author of the submitted manuscript and you have the right to argue against referees recommendations as long as your argument is valid. I've done that several times during multiple-round revision and the papers were still accepted. This process, in all, should be constructive and not DESTRUCTIVE... Some of the reviewer can be destructive and it might, most of the time, be related to competition or some others aspect, and there is no need to answer this kind of review. The exchange between the author and the editor is crucial, and at some point the editor should make a decision.

Dear All,

The evolution of a manuscript is not always that what Hanno described above. It can happen that a reviewer (being the specialist of the field addressed by the author) finds lack of information and evidences.

In these cases it is his/her task to ask to complete the manuscript.

Some years ago I read an article where because of taxonomic mistakes unreliable information was published showing that the two reviewers were not on the top of their job. Unfortunately, neither the Hanno proposed iterative manuscript evolution way was used.

So, the paper has been submitted, reviewed and changes were made to cope with suggestions. Eventually, the only new modifications I would consider, should be related somehow to the changes requested and introduced and their eventual relationships with the former content. Otherwise, I would consider that the reviewer is either having an hidden agenda (i.e. what Christophe said) or that he did not do correctly his job in the first place !

Dear András,

ok, if you are lucky to find such a reviewer. The given tips should be worked in, of course, but once given, the advice should be worked in with great efforts.

One should consider suggestions given by Reviewer..

As it always with a intension to help you to improve the study.. And if you don't agree with the reviewer then you must have a strong justification fpr the same..

I thinks thats  what is required of when publishing. Normally corrections are done before publications. The corrections should be taken positively.

Yes the reviewer should be given the authority to request for change in the contents in the research paper. Because- the review is, most of the time , good for the paper. It may decrease the errors found in the paper by the reviewer.

In my opinion, during the review process, reviewers can make all suggestions and recommendations he/she considers most appropriate  to improve the manuscript under review, but not after the author received all comments and recommendations from the editor. Of course, if the author reply to reviewers' comments, they can make additional comments of the author reply but not on the manuscript itself.

Dear Jorge,

Your comments are highly appreciated. I agree with you that during the review process, reviewers can make all suggestions and recommendations appropriate to improve the manuscript under review, but not after the author received all comments. 

Dear Mahfuz and Jorge,

the main point is "after" the author received all comments. That´s exactly my standpoint.

Thanks my dear Mahfuz for your comment. I think that this is for me a matter of principle. The reviewers should do the best work they can in the revision of a manuscript and their comments and suggestions be sent in time to the editor. This is the only manner the reviewers have to show respect for the work done by another professional. 

The request of a second review of a paper is a possible event even if exceptional. I have rarely experienced it both as author and reviewer.

As a reviewer I think this would be exceptional. Usually reviewers send all the comments and then review your modifications or responses. Unless there will be new achievements in the field that would strengthen your paper, they usually do not request further modifications.

Even though the authors have made all requested amendments, new issues may emerge or there are errors in these amendments.  So if the request for new amendments is about the latest amendments made by the author(s), it should be fine. It is up to the editor whether to endorse the request.

Yes, I fully agree with the views of @Huajiang. Its totally depends on the opinion of editor.

I agree with Huaijiang that Editor-in-Chief makes the final call and Editor should also ensure that the new amendments and scrutiny do not unduly delay the publication of the accepted paper.

Ajay singh, correct the views of editor cant be thrown away like that, it has to be listened to.

Dear Mahfuz,

It is well-known that the reviewers do not have the right to ask for new additions or amendments if the article has been already sent to the editor. However, if the new amendments can improve the quality of our articles, then we do not we consider them.

NO, After carriying out all amendments as required by reviewer, and when the article is sent to the editor, the reviewer does not have any right to request additional amendments to the article

A reviewer can give comments (or additional comments) on the revised manuscript, only when the manuscript is sent to him/her, which depends on the Editor.

Yes the reviewer has the right to request if he thinks further amendments can support his manuscript, and it is on the author to accept  his request or not. 

Dear Professor @Mahfuz, I think that it is not possible to request new additional amendments to the article after the submission of the report; this is possible only in exceptional and urgent cases.

Dear Abedallah - Mahfuz asked us a hypothetical question and we give him hypothetical answers, and friends are free to read the questions and answers as they like.

Reviewers like me do journal reviewing as 'voluntary work' and we shall be glad if the paper passes after 1 or 2 reviews depending on the quality of work and the revision according to our suggestions. Reviewing papers also takes a lot of time - especially reviewing papers written in bad English. I don't make requests for additional amendments after the review process. 

Questions from Mahfuz and the replies from experts on various topics helped me a lot about the administrative processes in many matters and we are very grateful to him.

With regards, Sundar

Dear Sundar,

I highly appreciate your contribution. Thank you, and I hope that all of us can benefit from exchanging ideas in our discussions.

I think, RG should be a platform for serious discussions.  Let me request researcher to avoid hypothetical questions and hypothetical answers.  

If the suggestions proposed by the reviewer are mainly based on improvement of write up, corrections can be taken as they are & one can expect 100% implementation. If the suggestions are connected to the technical matters of the paper, then, in my thinking, the author should be free to accept or reject the suggestions by parts or in full.  

Dear @Sundarapandian, I agree with you that Professor @Mahfuz asked us a hypothetical question and we give him hypothetical answers, and friends are free to read the questions and answers as they like. 

This is exactly what I did. 

The reviewer ought to have read the paper thoroughly & that is why amendments are requested. If after doing all what is required, the reviewer asks for more then there is something wrong with the whole process adopted by the journal. You may be surprised that I know some reviewers who do their work during a train journey between 2 distant places. How come there will be concentration on reading when there are all the noises around the "reviewer? Of course, the demands will increase.

Yes, dear Dr. Nizar. I fully agree with you that the reviewer ought to have read the paper thoroughly and that is why amendments are requested.

It depends on the case, some times the reviewer ask for additional thing, I do not mind to work on it if it will give an added value to the research.

Fellow researcher, 

I joined the group of ResearchGate recently.  I am happy to know that I am in company with International group of Scientists.  So far I have been seeing very intelligent questions and sharing of information.  I got additional information in different areas of research, like Education, Ergonomics, Heat Transfer, Super Conductivity, Safety, Motivation of Students and Staff, 3D Printing, Islamic Arts and Worker's absenteeism.   

The approach of exchanging hypothetical questions and answers may damage the real seriousness of research activities, all over the globe.  Possibly Researchers may have their 'Monotony Breaking', in other Social and Professional bodies.  

We find the world is full of corruption, crimes, war and so many other unfit way of living.  I hope Researcher shall understand if I say "LET US MEAN BUSINESS THROUGH RESEARCHGATE".  

Regards,

Dr.S.Ravindran  

Dear Ravindran,

Who says it is a hypothetical question ????????????

It happened with me and with two of my colleagues......

I highly appreciate the comments of every colleague, including the following colleagues:

-  Dear Abedallah” friends are free to read the questions and answers as they like”

-  Dear Shafig “sometimes the reviewer asks for additional thing...”

-  Dear Sundara, “Questions from Mahfuz and the replies from experts on various topics helped me a lot about the administrative processes in many matters and we are very grateful to him”.

When you find 58 answers, till now, from professional scholars… what does this mean dear Ravindran?

I don`t agree with you that "LET US MEAN BUSINESS THROUGH RESEARCHGATE" ?????????  as you said, my friend...

I say .. "LET US MEAN SCIENCE THROUGH RESEARCHGATE"........

WE ARE NOT ON RG TO MAKE BUSINESS BUT TO EXCHANGE IDEAS ON SCIENCE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Let us talk logic and science..

I am sorry Ravindran, but I have to say it.

Pl understand that the phrase 'LET US MEAN BUSINESS THROUGH RESEARCHGATE", does not mean that we make money through RG.  It indicates that one is very serious about research.  

One has to take the meaning of the statements in proper sense.  

Dr.S.Ravindran

@ Dear Prof. Shafig,

I completely agree with you that we do not mind to work on th new  amendment if it will give an added-value to the research.

Most of us are reviewers, and we try to be fair, thorough, and objective. A few of reviewers do not read the manuscripts thoroughly in the first time and accordingly request certain amendments from authors. When they receive the amended manuscript, they find that some more or new points have to be addressed.

Most of the authors do the new amendments due to known reasons, while others, as I did,  refuse to do the new amendments. Am I right in doing so if I believed that the new amendments do not add any value?

Dear Prof. Mahfuz: In my experience, once I submit my paper (with co-authors) to a journal, as much possible we go by the wisdom of Reviewers and make changes in our papers by making amendments and other changes as requested. This is done so as to enhance the acceptance of our papers, and also, if we withdraw our paper due to disagreements with reviewers and submit it to another journal, then this results in a long delay of publication of our paper as it will again have to go through another round of reviews. So, it is wise to make the changes called on our papers and hope for acceptance after review process. 

I agree with you, Mahfuz.  However, I also believe that the author(s) have a responsibility to be clear about their reasons for refusing or rejecting a revision.  One paper I worked on was 15 pages long, but our response to one reviewer was 32 pages, as we needed to respond to every one of his 57 points of concern - talk about thorough!  He responded to this note with 10 more points of concern, at which point we simply appealed to the editor, as there was a very clear difference of opinion about analysis.  But if we hadn't been diligent with our response, I doubt that paper would have been published.

Dear Julia,

Your comments are highly appreciated. I believe that is a big problem. A paper was 15 pages long, but your response to one reviewer was 32 pages, as you needed to respond to every one of his 57 points of concern.  He responded to this note with 10 more points of concern...  It is really amazing !!!

Generally a paper is accepted with minor corrections or with major changes. In the first case the paper do not needs 2nd revision. In the second case the paper was sustainably rewritten ie in a new version and should needs a 2nd and may be 3rd round of revision before final accept for publication.

Dear Fairouz,

I fully agree with you that the paper might be sustainably rewritten ie in a new version and should needs a 2nd and may be 3rd round of revision before final accept for publication.