I have noticed that some journals in which I have acted as a reviewer do not send the revised paper back to me before accepting (i.e., the editor decides to accept). I find this a bit problematic since sometimes I have requested some major changes that I would have liked to see before final accepting. Is this common and do you think it is a good practice?
This is not uncommon. This has its pros and cons. It is difficult to assume that a reviewer always has more knowledge and is always right. There may also be cases when two reviewers expect contradictory changes. It seems that the best practice is to compose the author's response to reviews and leave the role of arbiter to the editor, who can moderate the discussion between the author and the reviewer interrupting it when he considers that the arguments of one of the parties are convincing enough.
This is not uncommon. This has its pros and cons. It is difficult to assume that a reviewer always has more knowledge and is always right. There may also be cases when two reviewers expect contradictory changes. It seems that the best practice is to compose the author's response to reviews and leave the role of arbiter to the editor, who can moderate the discussion between the author and the reviewer interrupting it when he considers that the arguments of one of the parties are convincing enough.
Hi Tero - as Anna states it is not uncommon. At the end of the day it is at the editor's discretion. Especially if the authors submit a detailed and accurate account and rebuttal of recommendations, and the editor has at least a reasonable knowledge of the topic area, then that will often suffice for them to make a decision. It happens in other areas of academia as as well. For instance, PhD thesis examiners often suggest emendations that have to be addressed. However, the changes do not usually go back to the examiners for re-review.
Yes, it is common. I think it's good practice, since the editor provides a neutral perspective on whether the suggestions made by the reviewer have been reasonably satisfied.
Tero, I agree that this is problematic. It is unacceptable for the editor not to feedback to the reviewer. Reviews are mostly done freely and on the basis of professional good will sometimes taking a great deal of effort. I review many papers and if an editor did not have the professional courtesy to feedback to me I would not review for that journal again.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Academic Journals