Coloque el articulo virgen sin comentarios, otto documento con los primeros comentarios y un ùltimo documento con lo arreglado escriba correo a la revista donde explique lo que me dice y ojos tres documentos por si solo demostraràn que las indicaciones de los pares furron resueltas ojo es importante que explique bien por correo todo.

Such things happen when the journal assigns different reviewers to review the same paper. You may want to follow up enquiring about the situation if the journal's reply is delayed.

Dear Pasan Dunuwila - as Prof-Dr-Ahmed Al-Baidhani أ. د. احمد البيضاني has said, yes, these things can happen. It is a shame, and very annoying to authors, but reviewers can often have a lot of power in these circumstances. You are right to contact the editor, and begin a conversation about the changes you have made. When I undertake revisions like this, I use track changes in Microsoft Word and, having numbered the reviewer comments, use these numbers to highlight how I have attended to the reviewer requests.

Very best of luck with your submission and hope you get the final acceptance, James.

yes, if it makes the work better. If you are sure its best revised form and it cost to get it revised, your call.

It must be an omission on part of the # 2 reviewer. If the corrective action delay, you may wish to consult the chairman to the board of reviewers.

It is very possible to get a minor revision as a first decision, and then major revision as second decision, and finally a rejection. This can be heart-breaking to authors.

But some editors feel relieved when this happens because it could be that there was a fundamental problem with the paper that the second set of reviewers spotted which the first set of reviewers didnt notice.

Dont be discouraged

This is what is termed Academic Arrogance. The reviewer should do a trough job of review in the first instance and not put authors through such torture.

You are in a no win situation -- your best bet is to accept the major revision with grace and complete it to the best of your abilities. This sort of issue does happen, I once had a paper accepted by an A* journal with minor revisions -- once the revisions were done and the revised paper submitted, it was rejected by an editor.

I tell my thesis students that they need to learn how to live with both fair and unfair rejection and in some cases just move on to another journal.

Yes, this can happen. In my case, I had submitted my paper with minor revisions and I received major revisions once the paper was submitted.

You have to satisfy the reviewer because editor will follow the instruction given by reviewers. Try to satisfy the 2nd reviewer and highlight all the changes while submitting the revision. It's better not to argue with them. Best of luck.

Well in case the reviewer did not give any new comments, it's unfair to the authors. However, if the reviewer came up with some other suggestions which may improve the paper, then I think we should consider it a good chance to improve the paper.

A veces los trabajos estàn buenos pero por ejemplo la bibliografìa està envejecida, o pudiesen sustituirse, agregarse o eliminarse citas, figuras, elementos y es muy recomendable la mejorìa pero otras veces los trabajos estàn impecables

This situation happen with many others researchers, i suggest you to submit your best work to other Q1 journal because sometime journal success is also effect it badly and hence they have to reject the manuscript without a proper reason or decisions.

I would like to thank everyone sharing experience and giving feedback. We still waiting for a reply form the editor (Journal said that they have already contacted the editor; it has been a week from the last reminder). Somehow we still in a dilemma what to do next if the editor doesn't reply within coming week. After double checking the Response to reviewers at major revision stage, we still believe that we have addressed reviewer#2 comments adequately (at least straightforward comments like putting the definitions of variables in equation x under bullets). We hope for the best.

Hi Pasan,

Be appreciative of the review comments that helped you improve your paper and send it on to another journal -- publishing high quality research papers can take two or more years of effort.

Once the paper considered for review and the required revision doesn't affect the study objective and result significantly, and a revision that will improve the paper will not be a problem.

Review process is very difficult procedure, some time Reviewer upgrade the knowledge on specific reasoning so next time quite possible the Reviewers awareness upgraded and he or she wants to do the paper in that way.

Reviewing process takes a lot of patience and may be frustrating attimes. But it is all to the beautification of the paper.

As you already know, the quality of the manuscript is a decisive criterion for its screening in / out at the pre-peer review—preliminary editorial review, that is—stage. During an initial review, the journal editors generally aim at identifying whether the manuscript: https://www.cwauthors.com/article/How-to-deal-with-revise-and-resubmit-to-an-academic-journal

From my experience, this is mostly caused by a change in reviewers. The initial reviewers may sugggest a minor revision and can decline to review the revised manuscript. The editor will then find a new set of reviewers and send the paper to a new set of reviewers who may suggest a major revision

Once I was caught between two reviewers. Reviewer #I recommended publication; Reviewer #2 suggested 5 or 6 major modifications, any one of which would require essentially the researching and writing of another paper, and 2 or 3 years of work. I had already spent 8 or 9 years on the paper. I contacted the Editor who had been very encouraging of my work and told him that I believed I could never satisfy Reviewer #2. The Editor decided to publish the revised paper as Reviewer #1 had suggested, and as a third tie breaking Reviewer also recommended. Once published, the paper was granted the second best manuscript award for papers published by that journal in 2012.

If your paper is of high quality, do not give up on it. If necessary, try another journal. Good papers tend to find a home.

In my perspective, Journal editors don't like authors to send messages or E-mail editorial help or support center. Because the third party recommends or suggest or identity their work flaw that most editors didn't like. Simply, they reject the research article even with much more novelty and scientific contributions present in it. If you have already done that major/ minor revision but it revised with the same reviewer comment then just my recommendation submit it once again and send a hoc mail via acton link correspondence option to the handling editor. This is only handling editor may consider your request. Hope, All the best for success.

It's all about patience. I had made a submission and it took two years for the response from the first reviewer. The scenario is very possible but I have never experienced such though. It can be so frustrating

There is always politics in the peer review system because researchers have to compete and get their work published in high IF journals rather than producing research that benefits the humanity.

This scenario may happen due to change of reviewer after the first review. Even the best papers could sometimes receive a major revision or rejection after an initial minor revision request. It all depends on the editor to adjudge the comments base on the merit of the paper.

Hello Pasan Dunuwila

I have had this situation myself. I actually got those comments from the editor - not even reviewers so the scenario was not even with changed reviewers such as suggested most recently by Adeshina Fadeyibi suggested (which is actually a very sensible suggestion).

So what I did was take the manuscript to another journal...

You might consider asking the editor to send the paper to a third reviewer for comment. There are times when you can never satisfy a particular reviewer. Under those circumstances to request a third reviewer's input is acceptable.

Or, you might consider sending the paper to a different journal.

@Pasan Dunuwila,

Any new development in this regard?

YES, IF YOU MISUNDERSTAND THE CORRECTIONS REQUIRED OF YOU

Yes , it is possible to get a 'major revision' decision after initially receiving a 'minor revision' decision