I have recently responded to three (3) reviewers' critical remarks, then the editor informed me that these reviewers have been changed (as they declined to review my revised contribution - i.e. they did not read my corrections). What are views on such practices? Did it happen to you?
I think that the peer review system ought to be improved and refined. There are many editors out there who are publishing the works of their friends and colleagues.
In the peer revirew process anything can happen. However, even under changing circunstances, editors should make every effort to treat authors well and be fair to them And this was not the case in the example you mention... never happened to me, fortunately...
The same happened fairly recently. 1st round of review = major changes recommended. I operated them. 2nd round of review, two different reviewers, and they asked me to do different things and sometimes, the opposite of 1st round of reviewers. I complained to the journal (chief editor) and reviewed the paper himself. I was happy with that.
It's a bit rude. Usually only the editor reviews revisions, not the original reviewers.
Yes - we went through a process where two reviewers recommended fairly minor changes before publication, which we made very quickly. Then, the manuscript went back to a different, third reviewer, who asked for the manuscript to be rejected and suggested it was resubmitted as a research note. We queried this with the editor, but never received any replies, so we eventually withdrew the paper. It was disappointing that our queries about the process were never addressed, and I have heard similar stories from colleagues. Of course, reviewers can disagree, and it was by no means the perfect paper, but I think sometimes editors could intervene more pro-actively in these cases.
It depends on the journal transparency...in my opinion, reviewers can change in a second round but they should check the first round. Anyway, curious things sometimes happen...better ask to the editor and, if you have no answer or a negative one, change to a more transparent journal.
It has happened recently. There were a few instances when the new reviewer comments conflicted with the first round reviewer comments. In these cases, we noted the conflict and our choice for addressing the reviewers (sometimes sticking to the way we had addressed after the first round review), in the letter to reviewers for this round. That worked well.
Yes, I have. Once I sent a manuscript in accepted for "minor final revisions" to the figure font and other trivial editorial issues and had the article sent out for review by a completely different set of reviewers and ultimately rejected! Huge integrity problem in that journal and with its editors.
I suspect the reviewers for one of my papers were changed during the review process, but do not have a proof. In any case, I have never changed the reviewers during the review process for papers submitted to the European Journal of Tourism Research.
Happened with a recent paper I co-authored. There were substantive comments to respond to for the first two reviewers. After these revisions were submitted, the paper was sent out to three different reviewers in the second round. Quite exhausting.
This could happen if the editor feels there is some conflict of interest between authors and reviewers
Yes, improvement is imperative. Peer reviewers should fulfill any outstanding obligations before being substituted. Clearly a human resource management issue.
Actually I answer from the side of the reviewer. I reviewed a draft (in fact, one of the authors of the paper commented above) and then when the next draft came around the journal invited me to review again, but the invitation letter did not identify the due date. So I hit the "accept" button and then discovered I could not meet the deadline. I wrote the journal indicating as much and they did not respond. It wasn't until much later that I complained to the editor in chief about this practice and he said he would look into it. But I felt sort of entrapped by their automatic response system.
Hi,
During earlier stages of my research, I have faced all kinds of injustices possible from various reputed journals. Were I to list them down, many of the journals would have to wage a legal/IP war with our team. I have had reviewer changes post revision, who outrightly rejected our manuscripts; At times, editors reject the manuscript citing lack of novelty and you happen to find one of the editor's PhD scholars publishing the same work in the same journal in the next three months. The processes are biased and are greatly based on your brand value (the corresponding author, the organization you belong to). As long as your scientific publications are regarded as a quality of your scientific achievements, journals would resort to all sorts of atrocities.
This is a strange experience. What I have experienced is due to lack of reviewers my paper took more than a year to reviewed.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Publishing