In the course of published academic work almost everything is peer reviewed at some point - books, conference papers, journals etc.. The standard seems to be at least two peer reviews, but more frequently I have experienced three. In almost all cases - the peer reviewers never seem to agree. Some times one person accepts, another rejects, one person likes one element, the other dislikes the same element.
I would be interested in knowing how people deal with the differences often found between reviews.
As an editor, I often have to marry differing views of reviewers to direct an author at improving the submission. It may be very confusing to send reviewers' reports contradicting each other. It is a hard job. I often turn to my colleagues, members of the editorial board to get to the point. As a researcher, in addition to differing views of peers, it is my view that might differ, too. I do my best to follow everybody's arguments, to get the rationale, to see the gist. I have to say I seldom succeed.
As an editor, I often have to marry differing views of reviewers to direct an author at improving the submission. It may be very confusing to send reviewers' reports contradicting each other. It is a hard job. I often turn to my colleagues, members of the editorial board to get to the point. As a researcher, in addition to differing views of peers, it is my view that might differ, too. I do my best to follow everybody's arguments, to get the rationale, to see the gist. I have to say I seldom succeed.
David - this is a common phenomenon. It can happen with two reviewers as well - one says it's excellent - another 'major' revision/reject. The reviewers that accept tend to have not made many comments - so there is usually no real rebuttal needed. Any minor changes they recommend are usually easily accommodated. A critical reviewer who suggests major revision or rejection will often be 'over-critical', focused on 'trivia' i.e. referencing errors and/or not have fully understood the article context/rationale. The best approach is to accomodate all the changes that are appropriate and benefit the article overall. For changes that are not appropriate - then a detailed, evidence-based and balanced rebuttal response is best. I review for 40 plus journals. I 'respect' authors if they can offer a good rationale and justification for not making suggested changes.
Both previous responses very good. I particularly like Lilia's response as an editor. She sounds like a good editor, and there's part of the rub. Good journals generally have good editors and good reviewers. Lesser ones can have problems. Reviewers may disagree, but not fundamentally. Reviewers must put their own prejudices on one side. Good ones do, bad ones don't. Good editors know a good review from a bad one. They should guide the author appropriately. If possible, give the author the option to revise and resubmit. But the author may also raise issues with the editor before resubmission.
Christopher NOCK
Dear David Wooff and readers,
As already pointed out by previous researchers, it will be very helpful to an author if editors will be able to carefully merge the most pressing views of reviewers so as to get something like an 'executive summary' of the review (that is particularly when the reviewers have quite contrasting views and recommendation). This will give a proper direction to the author(s).
I have had cases where some reviewers had very opposing views of the same issues - that is, while one agrees in its entirety and even offers more critical views to be added to what have been already presented, another may vehemently oppose the same view. This is quite understandable, especially in the case of the Arts and Social Sciences where researchers points of view may usually be influenced by their viewing point. However, a good editor or editorial board MUST be able to appropriately 'referee' without biases; instead of forwarding contrasting comments to the author(s), they MUST agree on what is it that should be communicated to the author(s). It is this that will serve as a proper guide for an appropriate and desirable revision of manuscripts.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers