Most manuscripts need to be revised at least once before publication.
When you are an original reviewer, looking at a revised version, is it permissible to raise NEW issues not mentioned in the initial review?
If you were not the original reviewer, but are reviewing a re-submission, can you raise new issues or must you limit yourself to determining whether the original issues were fully addressed?
In my opinion, unless the new issues result from specific additions during the revision, the reviewer should NOT raise issues that should have been addressed in the earlier review. What do you think?
Sometimes the reviewing process forced you to increase issues or add new items about your investigation. Also, after review process comes the editing process where others suggested you changes sometimes and it could be a moment to raise issues.
In your particular case, if reviewer don't talk about it I don't think it could be a big deal that you add issues or viewpoints opportune for your research derivate from the process itself.
Is my opinion. Good luck and regards.
Hi Michael,
I think a reviewer (initial or secondary reviewer on a resubmission) should only add new items if she sincerely feels that the piece is deficient without discussing a particular item or angle. Often when reviewing a paper in one of my research areas, I feel tempted to steer the discussion to aspects of the field in which I am interested. I always resist though, recognizing that this is unfair and that an author's work should be reviewed in terms of its contribution to the topic he or she is pursuing; i.e., the stated thesis. To do otherwise is to state in effect, "No; that is not the interesting issue/question/approach to this topic; the only way to view this topic is from ...... (my personal research interest)." Reviewers must resist this temptation to stroke their own egos.
Gwen
When I am a new reviewer, I don't hesitate to raise technical issues that were not detected by the earlier reviewers. In particular, if their are problematic gaps or even outright errors, those should not occur in any published paper.
If you reviewed the paper in its first submission, that is the time to raise critical issues for the author(s) in their revisions. If the authors make major changes in the revision (e.g. change the statistical methodology, significant alterations in the theory development and such) then I think it is fair game to raise new issues. I have served as an editor, an associate editor and a reviewer.
This is a particularly troublesome issue when a reviewer on the first submission declines to review the revised manuscript--often another new reviewer is brought in to the process---but it is the editor's responsibility to discuss with this third reviewer some ground rules for the review. What is extraordinarily helpful is to provide the new reviewer with the initial reviews and a copy of the initial submission
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication