Rejection takes place on major issues which need structural changes. It is like attempting a study afresh. When an expert rejects the research paper; it is supported with highlighting issues. If the paper is again submitted for review, it may be evaluated and comments may be offered on changes; either favorable or otherwise.

Reviewing a revised paper that you previously rejected is a sensitive and important academic task. It requires objectivity, consistency, and professionalism, especially because the authors have already responded to your initial criticisms. Here's a step-by-step guide on how to handle this process effectively and ethically, including academic citation to support best practices in peer review.

Step-by-Step Guide to Reviewing a Revised Paper You Have Previously Rejected

Step 1: Re-read Your Original Review

Before reading the revised manuscript:

Retrieve your original review and remind yourself of the key issues you raised.

Focus on your main concerns, such as methodological flaws, lack of theoretical grounding, poor structure, or insufficient data.

“Reviewers should reread their original comments and consider whether the authors have addressed the substantive concerns previously raised” (Ware, 2011, p. 14).

Step 2: Examine the Author Response Letter (if provided)

Most journals require authors to include a response to reviewers’ document.

Read this carefully.

Check if each concern you raised has been addressed.

Pay attention to how the authors explain their changes or defend original positions.

“The response letter is essential in helping the reviewer track revisions and understand the rationale behind the authors’ decisions” (Benos et al., 2003).

Step 3: Compare the Revised Manuscript with the Original

Now, read the revised manuscript side-by-side with the original version (if available).

Focus on revised sections

Ask: Did the authors revise or ignore the problematic areas?

Evaluate whether the quality of the manuscript has improved sufficiently to warrant reconsideration.

“Peer reviewers should be open to revised work but maintain high standards to ensure the integrity of the review process” (COPE, 2017).

Step 4: Evaluate the Sufficiency and Quality of Revisions

Assess the depth, rigor, and scholarly adequacy of the revisions:

Have theoretical frameworks been clarified or updated?

Have methodological issues been corrected?

Are the results now more robust or better explained?

Has the discussion been strengthened?

“Revisions should be substantial and not merely cosmetic. Reviewers must evaluate whether the core problems were solved” (Kowalczuk et al., 2015).

Step 5: Maintain Objectivity and Avoid Bias

Even if you rejected the manuscript earlier:

Approach the revised version with an open mind.

Do not let your earlier recommendation bias your judgment.

Be fair and constructive, not punitive.

“Good peer reviewers evaluate revisions independently, based on merit, without anchoring on previous decisions” (Lee et al., 2013).

Step 6: Provide a Clear, Structured Second Review

Your second review should:

Acknowledge whether the authors made a genuine effort to improve the manuscript.

Indicate which revisions are satisfactory and which are still weak.

Be professional and respectful, regardless of your recommendation.

Structure your review:

Summary of changes

Strengths of the revised paper

Remaining issues

Recommendation (accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject)

Step 7: Make a Final Recommendation Based on Scholarly Merit

Decide based on:

Has the manuscript improved enough to be publishable?

Is the paper now within the journal’s scope and standards?

Would you recommend this version if it was submitted as a new manuscript?

If not, you may still recommend rejection but be clear and fair in your justification.

“A reviewer’s recommendation must be based solely on the manuscript’s quality and contribution to the field” (COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, 2017).

Sample Template (Optional Structure)

Reviewer Response to Revised Manuscript

Dear Editor,

I have re-reviewed the revised manuscript [Title], and I appreciate the authors’ detailed responses to my earlier concerns. Below is my assessment:

Summary of Revisions:

The authors have addressed the following major concerns: ...

Strengths of the Revision:

Improved clarity in theoretical framework

More robust data analysis

Remaining Concerns:

The conclusion remains weak and lacks alignment with the findings

Literature review still omits recent critical studies

Recommendation:

At this stage, I recommend Minor Revisions Major Revisions Rejection based on the following rationale...

You basically start from the point you reached to in your previous review.

check whether your previous enquiries, notes, issues, etc. have been dealt with in the next submission of the paper; and consequently, you may assess whether the author's amendments fulfilled the purpose or not in order to give the paper a pass for publication and/or ask for further amendments, or totally reject the paper.

Of course, we are talking here about a paper that you partly rejected and sent back to author for amendment, not about a paper that you previously totally rejected.