Is it logical for a reviewer to send different comments after R1? We recieved comments and after submitting the revised MS, all the changes were satisfactory to reviewers as they did not raise any query regarding previous comments. But, in R2 totally different comments were made on the manuscript.
It is not uncommon for reviewers to provide different comments or to raise new concerns after the submission of a revised manuscript. This could be due to a number of factors, such as the reviewer having a closer reading of the manuscript or having new insights based on additional research. However, it is also possible that the reviewer may not have thoroughly reviewed the previous version of the manuscript or that they may have changed their opinion. In any case, it is important for the author to carefully consider the feedback and revise the manuscript accordingly.
The second round comments were more critical than the first one. Looked as if two different persons evealuated the manuscript.
There is no much logic in peer review process. Unfortunately, you MUST follow their instructions if you want to get published dear Adnan Shakeel . Try to get MAXIMUM from feedback, in order to improve your paper.
I find this article interested for this research question.
Peer review before trial conduct could increase research value and reduce waste
Traditional peer-review of clinical trials happens too late, after the trials are already done. However, lack of methodological rigor and presence of many biases can be detected and remedied in advance. Here, we examine several options for review and improvement of trials before their conduct...
Innovative ideas are necessary to advance quality in clinical trials and lower the cumulative burden for peer-reviewer...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0895435623001373
- Badges
- Science method