I served as a reviewer for journal B. I noticed that I already reviewed the same manuscript for journal A. I provided my comments (a couple of pages long) for improvement for journal A. However, the author (s) completely ignored my comments and made no changes to submit to journal B. The manuscript has been rejected by journal A because it does not meet the journal's quality standards.
I reported it to the journal editor and stated that I already reviewed this manuscript for another journal. The author (s) made no changes by reflecting on my comments.
My question is this: Do you think it should be the author’s academic freedom to revise or not to revise before submitting to another journal? Or should it be considered unethical practice? Also, should the manuscript be rejected if it is considered unethical?
This depends on the reason for rejection. If it was because the paper is out of scope of the journal, no changes are needed - just find a journal that suits better. However, if the rejection was due to quality deficiencies, the author should of course improve the paper.
Dear Wolfgang,
Your answer is quite appealing to me. By the way, the manuscript has been rejected due to poor quality. Thank you so much for your input.
Hello Dr Don Soo Chon
The author(s) retains that right and has not done anything morally wrong. I think you and I would both do and choose differently but what they have done is not technically unethical or illegal. It might not enhance their chances of getting published. This is their fault.
I think you would be entitled to put in exactly the same review/response - change if you feel obliged to or compelled to ha ha. But if you do that, then I would consider such an action to be equally ethical and legal.
It may be frustrating from your point of view. It sounds like the author(s) could try harder.
Hello Dr. Joseph C Lee,
As you said, I had to give the same comments to the author (s).
Thank you so much for your insight.
Dr. Don Soo Chon
Thank you very much for posting this question.
Usually there are three perspectives.
My story, their story, and the truth.
While we read your part with keen interest, we don’t know their perspective. Whether they were asked by publisher 1, to modify the submission as per your recommendations or their submission was rejected.
Once, I know the answer to this missing information, that would perhaps be appropriate time to talk about ethics.
Regards.
- Badges
- Science method