Interested to know the opinion of the wider scientific community.
As an editor, I have to make the decision whether or not to accept the paper based on the reviewers comments. If possible, I will also seek the opionion of a third reviewer. There is no obligation to accept a paper for publication.....
I do think that in this case editor must take a desicion, based on the arguments given by referees and based on contrarguments given by authors.
As an editor, I have to make the decision whether or not to accept the paper based on the reviewers comments. If possible, I will also seek the opionion of a third reviewer. There is no obligation to accept a paper for publication.....
Yes I agree, if you are not confident, you can find third. But it look's like a lottery, where your chances are again 50/50. so? NO need to search third. I think the Journal board or small committee must discuss and then you make a decision.
I think it very much depends on the depth of review and the nature of the comments from each reviewer. Each case would need to be individually assessed and I agree with John, that a third reviewer may clarify the situation. The Editor(s) and journal board may not be the best people to make that decision, because the essence of peer review is that 'experts' in the field of research will know the background, literature, debates, etc better than any body else. The role of the Editor(s) and journal board is to facilitate the process of publication, not to assess the content beyond whether or not it is suitable to the journal content. To bypass the review process undermines the process of scientific standards maintenance.
It depends on a journal policy, but the most common scenarios are those outlined above: the editor makes a decision alone or requests one or more additional referees to review the manuscript. Sometimes the third referee (the adjudicator) is chosen from a narrower pool of trusted reviewers and her/his report is given somewhat more 'weight' in making the final decision on the article in question.
The editor's decision whether to accept or reject the paper or involve a third reviewer may also depend on who the reviewers are: e.g. if one is a very well-known professor and the other is a PhD student, then the editor may decide to follow the professor's advice. Also, it may depend on based on what one reviewer suggested to reject the paper: if problems were relatively minor (e.g. a couple of typing errors and some format problems) or major (e.g. unsuitable method, calculation errors...).
I may decide by including my own opinion, effectively acting as a third reviewer. That occurs if I see plagiarism in the article, poor English, and/or relative lack of relevance to the main focus of the journal - then I reject the paper. If I have no strong personal opinion about the submission, I will solicit another reviewer or two.
I don't think that decision must be done according their status. Some professors are poor profesors and some PhD students are future of science. So when editor assignes reviewers they must be equal!
Unfortunately, usually the negative opinion is better argumented than positive one. You cannot ignore presence of error or mistake (plagiarism, poor English, lack of relevance, etc., as pointed by Prof. Ciaccio), but importance of report can be estimated by person with experience in exact field of research, so only a few people can say: "It must be published despite all the errors!"
Referees must be equal however editor always have choice to make decision regarding the comments or response. Despite the framework outlined above there is another component - politics. Indeed if I have almost equal papers from someone ("normal scientist") and also from e.g. James Rohlf, I prefer to publish later considering the limits of the journal. Of course probability of citation is more in that case which means more authority for the journal. I think this process is also normal and there is always another way to publish elsewhere.
I agree with Dr. Andrew Whittington , it depends on the review quality of both and a committee to decide is needed.
It 's very important that journals reach out to referees intellectually honest. When one of them expresses an adverse opinion about paper, the drafting committee should consider whether he is motivated by envy or jealousy towards the author in question.
That's a point in many cases. Sometimes it's easy to guess who is your referee, by the style of writing and no doubt that rejection was made because of envy and jealousy. So I think it's better to send the paper for reference not directly connected with your subject people, but to closely related field specialists. This is the way how it can be improved.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Academic Journals