In the peer-reviewing process, many times the feedback is mixed and I guess this must cost the editors some headaches. I wonder how does an editor deal with this in the case when no major flaws to the submitted work have been pointed out. Half of the reviewers give it a thumbs up whilst the other half give ti a thumbs down.
They tend to review it themselves and go with what they feel is the right thing to do. There is no rule, usually you'll get asked to alter it in some way. It's common sense, you revise and re-submit.
They tend to review it themselves and go with what they feel is the right thing to do. There is no rule, usually you'll get asked to alter it in some way. It's common sense, you revise and re-submit.
I agree with Alan - and know personally from my own editorial duties. It is a common-sense approach. A mixed review generally highlights that a manuscript submission has both strengths and weaknesses. As to whether an article of this 'quality' is accepted, or not, often depends of the quantity and quality of existing 'back-copy', originality and topicality of findings etc.
I agree with both the posters. But I also believe that a highly experienced or a senior reviewer makes a higher impact on the editor and often his decision stands too.
If there is no plagiarism, the English is good, and there is significance relevance to the main focus of the journal, I would allow revision. If I feel that the referees will not be able to provide a definitive answer as to whether or not to publish, I will add another referee or two to the subsequent round. I do take into greater consideration the reviews of senior referees who have not been recommended by the authors.
If two peer-reviews are not coherent, at least one of them is "publish with minor revisions", paper meets main focus and requirements of the journal then third peer-review may be necessary to avoid mistake. As an alternative further peer-review may be provided after revision by the author(s).
Every man have their expertise and the review problem mostly facing the new researchers not the old.
Normal practice is to send typically to three reviewers. If one reviewer rejects while the other two accept the paper with/without revision, the chief editor will have the option of sending it to another reviewer, or use his judgement based on the comments of the rejected reviewer to proceed with the publication. In general a third reviewer is used.
In the case of two opposite opinions a third opinion has to be sought. The editor him/her-self may take up the task if confident with the subject, otherwise will resort to a third referee. Just as simple as that.
If I myself feel submission is good enough - allow revision. If not sure - third opinion is sought.
I feel if the article was already reviewed once and a major revision is recommended and author has resubmitted the article with corrections, then also if there is conflict among reviewers then editor should further recommend revisions at there level, instead of sending to third reviewer and increasing the further complications.
:)
right now I have two very different reviews of my paper. Decided to take easiest way. It is ignore points, which are most contradictive, or just touch these slightly, instead of full rewrite
Some editors (if he close to the manuscript area) compromise the feedback from the reviewers, but some of top journals they accept only when all reviewers suggest acceptance.
Yes they tend to bring headaches but if the first two reviewers have a two factor cognitive thinking i.e confidence and believe then the third one can not have an interlectual defeat to call off the proposal of publishing the article
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers