What if only one referee insisted on insufficiency or still want major revisions while others are completely satisfied?
I have same doubt on the above question, can you anyone answer the above question.
If the paper is sent to three referees and two of them agrees ( even may be with some modification) the paper may be accepted.
I believe it depends on individual policies of the journal in which the work is to be published. Some journals may require unanimous approval on the part of the referees, while others may only require a majority. For a clear answer, you'll have to check with the specific journal/organization to which your work was submitted. On a side note, you shouldn't discount the comments of the dissenting referee. Our natural tendency as writers is to just ignore the critics and hold tight to those who approve of our work. But the critics quite often have valuable insight that the other reviewers either overlooked or don't find important to the discussion. Regardless of whether or not the work is eventually published, it is in your best interest to take the time to review and carefully consider the dissenting comments. Ultimately, you "final" version will be much stronger for the added effort.
How we can find the review policy of our interested journal, where we will find the review policy of our interested journal
I recommend location the publisher's website and asking the question directly to them via their "Contact Us" link. I've done a little searching and found that most publishers do not post those types of policies and procedures on-line, so the burden falls to the author to ask the question directly. I've also learned that many journals make publication decisions independent of the reviewers, but expect authors to consider reviewer comments in preparing final manuscripts. Sorry I couldn't be of more help.
Friends,
Peer review is bout two referres reviewing the paper. If they have diferent criteria and haven't coinsidence about a concept, guideline, method, e.g. then the Editor can send it to a thirth who could have the final choise according to one of both previews referees.In the other side, I think yes, both referees must suggest that the paper is accepted to publish, and editor criteria is very important there too.
It's my opinion
Hi all - basic rule is that the editor decides, while the reviewer assessments offer guidance. This guidance - including the final recommendation - can be accepted and followed, or ignored. This works in both directions (recommendation to accept the paper or to reject it). There is a clear decision making hierarchy: there is the editor-in-chief who has the final decision right. Below him/her are associate editors (usually a few), and in turn below those are the regular ("handling") editors. It's those regular editors that usually select reviewers and communicate with them and the authors. They make the first decision, and they, too, are not bound to the recommendations. Typically they guide the paper through 1 or more rounds of revisions until they are satisfied, after which they suggest the paper for publication (or rejection, if the paper does not sufficiently improve). The associate editor who then gets the paper can follow the advise, ask for further revision, or even overrule the regular editor. Same goes for the editor in chief - he/she can follow the recommendation or overrule. In practice it is fairly common for an editor to accept a paper where one reviewer recommends rejection. It also works the other way around. I work both as editor and associate editor, and have rejected papers where all 2or 3 reviewers recommended publication. This may seem strange. However, sometimes reviewers have limited expertise on the specific topic of the paper, while the (associate) editor does. In thesis case the reviewers can miss some fundamental flaws that only a topic expert can spot.
Regards, Norman
Dear @Al-Motasem, please do find this case study as an answer to your research question.
What happened when a reviewer complained of a lack of transparency over the publication of peer review reports?
We recently had concerns raised by one reviewer who disagreed with the content of the manuscript and its suitability for publication; the second reviewer was enthusiastic about the manuscript, and the editors decided to publish the text. The first reviewer accused the editors of behaving in a non-transparent manner and even of being unethical...
https://www.elsevier.com/connect/reviewers-update/what-happened-when-a-reviewer-complained-of-a-lack-of-transparency-over-the-publication-of-peer-review-reports
https://publicationethics.org/case/reviewer-concerns-about-transparency-peer-review-process
The peer review process is often kept secret, and there may be only one reviewer. Journals receive far more good material than they can hope to publish. So a lot of it gets rejected. The articles that are accepted may win a subjective test.
Re: Jerry's comment: In my view it's now often the opposite. Especially with digital publishing where the page limits of printed copies have disappeared, journals can now more easily publish much more. Often it is lucrative for them to do so, and this does not only apply to open access journals that work with author charges – also for most conventional journals authors need to pay processing charges, etc.
Problem now is to find quality reviewers, meaning that the process often is not as rigorous as it should be, resulting in sub-standard papers to get published.
In my opinion, today's system to evaluate any submitted paper is "yesterday's" day. I want to ask: Why does someone decide for me what to read and what not to read to me? Personally for me to hear any negative results is no less interesting (and sometimes a million times more interesting) than to hear the "right" results. Give an opportunity to everyone who wants to publish their results, and we, as a community, will evaluate their scientific contribution. From this point of view, I think about that Science Blockhain can became a modern IT tool to evaluate Real Science Contribution of any paper.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Phytochemistry
- Extracts