- Ask questions where they are not sure/convinced about a statement/conclusion VS reject a statement/conclusion where they 'think' it is not correct?
- Provide suggestions to improve a manuscript VS rebuke authors and reject a manuscript without giving authors a chance to fix the problems or justify the presented?
- Review a manuscript based on presented data/facts VS check how the presented data/facts/conclusions compare to their assumtions/beliefs?
- What if reviewrs are wrong, have provided recommendations based on their own perception instead of presented facts, or simply have not spent enough time to thoroughly read and understsnd a manuscript?
- AND Should editos accept reviewers' decisions without considering how they have dealt with a manuscript or whether their decision is rightfully based on the presented data/facts/conclusions?
Journal reviewers if knowledgeable help a lot in improving the quality of paper. However, some are not after quality of the paper but money/fees being paid more so in conference proceedings & some journals asking processing fees - this is the origin of predator publishers.
Notwithstanding the contributions of the journal reviewers, decisions are made by the editor. Reputable journals always do double-blind reviews, where different reviewers often give varied recommendations for the same paper. That's why final decisions are made by the editor considering reviewers' advice.
Hello,
Procedurally, an editor is assigned to handle a paper. The editor may give to two or more reviewers. In agreement with Emnet Negash, each reviewer comes up with his/her comments. Afterward, the comments are weighted against the scientific contribution, originality, for example, of the paper; each reviewer decides.
The responsible editor looks at the comments given by the reviewers. I guess, based on the majority rule, a paper is being rejected or accepted. If 50% of the reviewers accept the paper, the editor influences either to reject or accept the paper. Usually, the comments which lead to rejection are valuable resources to improve the paper. Fortunately, most of the rejection comes with such crucial input for its improvement.
Unfortunately, if the paper is irrelevant, the editor may reject it early by the editor! And this is not good news for the author (s).
Overall, I say the quality of the paper judges either of the decisions!
With kind regards,
Hailemariam
Both the editor and the reviewers have a big role to play in the acceptance or rejection of a paper. However, the judge should be the editor because he's more or less like a mediator between the author(s) and the reviewer(s). A manuscript recommended for rejection can be accepted by an editor if found worthy of publication in his journal. Thanks for bringing this up sir
The role of the reviewer is to provide the editor with critical information about the merits and shortcomings of a manuscript and recommend to both the authors and editor what can be done to improve the manuscript. The reviewers may also recommend to the editor to accept or reject a manuscript after critical review and detailed comments/reasons.
The final decision is in the hands of the editor based on the comments of the reviewers.
The Editor makes the final decision whether to reject/accept or propose a major/minor revision for a reviewed manuscript. But the Editor's decision is informed by the reviewer's critiques and his/her evaluation of the manuscript.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Philology
- Classical Philology
- Manuscripts