East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust
Question
Asked 25th Oct, 2013
How do journal editors deal with mixed review reports on submitted work?
In the peer-reviewing process, many times the feedback is mixed and I guess this must cost the editors some headaches. I wonder how does an editor deal with this in the case when no major flaws to the submitted work have been pointed out. Half of the reviewers give it a thumbs up whilst the other half give ti a thumbs down.
Most recent answer
One of my manuscripts received revisions from 5 reviewers and fortunately, the sixth reviewer had not responded. The five reviews were mixed with the majority (3 vs 2) requesting major revisions. I believe that the academic editor opted for 05 reviews as he would have considered that manuscript is original enough to potentially publishable, thus allowing the author to defend his/her manuscript against the majority of negative reviewer comments.
In general, however, the reviewer number is around two (or uncommonly three or four). The surplus reviewers at the initial stages of review are mainly in cases of mixed reviews I feel.
Popular answers (1)
University of Nottingham
They tend to review it themselves and go with what they feel is the right thing to do. There is no rule, usually you'll get asked to alter it in some way. It's common sense, you revise and re-submit.
6 Recommendations
All Answers (19)
University of Nottingham
They tend to review it themselves and go with what they feel is the right thing to do. There is no rule, usually you'll get asked to alter it in some way. It's common sense, you revise and re-submit.
6 Recommendations
Federation University Australia
I agree with Alan - and know personally from my own editorial duties. It is a common-sense approach. A mixed review generally highlights that a manuscript submission has both strengths and weaknesses. As to whether an article of this 'quality' is accepted, or not, often depends of the quantity and quality of existing 'back-copy', originality and topicality of findings etc.
3 Recommendations
Dr. Harisingh Gour University
I agree with both the posters. But I also believe that a highly experienced or a senior reviewer makes a higher impact on the editor and often his decision stands too.
3 Recommendations
Columbia University
If there is no plagiarism, the English is good, and there is significance relevance to the main focus of the journal, I would allow revision. If I feel that the referees will not be able to provide a definitive answer as to whether or not to publish, I will add another referee or two to the subsequent round. I do take into greater consideration the reviews of senior referees who have not been recommended by the authors.
2 Recommendations
Nicolaus Copernicus University
If two peer-reviews are not coherent, at least one of them is "publish with minor revisions", paper meets main focus and requirements of the journal then third peer-review may be necessary to avoid mistake. As an alternative further peer-review may be provided after revision by the author(s).
2 Recommendations
University of Malakand
Every man have their expertise and the review problem mostly facing the new researchers not the old.
I had this happen to me once.
I was lead author on a co-written article that was reviewed by 2 people who had diametrically opposed views- one considered it the greatest thing since sliced bread (this is a American expression that means absolutely fantastically great) and the other one thought it was the worse piece of garbage he had ever had the misfortune to waste his time reading. The editor advised me of this controversy and sent the paper to a third reviewer who said it seemed ok to him. The paper was published.
After the paper was published, it became seen as a valuable contribution to program evaluation, with the results widely cited as a standard reference in the field and the research approach as an inspiration for further development of macro level approaches.
Which proves you never know how people will respond.
3 Recommendations
University of Northern Iowa
Normal practice is to send typically to three reviewers. If one reviewer rejects while the other two accept the paper with/without revision, the chief editor will have the option of sending it to another reviewer, or use his judgement based on the comments of the rejected reviewer to proceed with the publication. In general a third reviewer is used.
2 Recommendations
Università degli Studi di Perugia
In the case of two opposite opinions a third opinion has to be sought. The editor him/her-self may take up the task if confident with the subject, otherwise will resort to a third referee. Just as simple as that.
1 Recommendation
Nature Research Centre
If I myself feel submission is good enough - allow revision. If not sure - third opinion is sought.
Samarkand State University
http://ijaridea.com/Editorial-Workflow gives you clear-cut answer
1 Recommendation
Rama Dental College
I feel if the article was already reviewed once and a major revision is recommended and author has resubmitted the article with corrections, then also if there is conflict among reviewers then editor should further recommend revisions at there level, instead of sending to third reviewer and increasing the further complications.
Nature Research Centre
:)
right now I have two very different reviews of my paper. Decided to take easiest way. It is ignore points, which are most contradictive, or just touch these slightly, instead of full rewrite
Al-Azhar University
Some editors (if he close to the manuscript area) compromise the feedback from the reviewers, but some of top journals they accept only when all reviewers suggest acceptance.
1 Recommendation
Makerere University
Yes they tend to bring headaches but if the first two reviewers have a two factor cognitive thinking i.e confidence and believe then the third one can not have an interlectual defeat to call off the proposal of publishing the article
Sri Siddhartha dental college and Hospital
I feel the editor is the person who finally decides on the stat of the manuscript, if the reviews are non decidable , then if, he is expert in that topic can review himself or may send to one more reviewer , and the best out these reviewers to decide on giving an decision on that particular menuscript .
Technische Universität Ilmenau
I am aware of a case for a top journal that invited 8 reviewers for a manuscript, there were 3 accepts, 1 reject, 1minor review, 3 major reviews. Is the decision easier with a higher number of reviewers or does it further complicate things?
Shivaji University, Kolhapur
Journal editors deal with mixed review reports on submitted work by considering both reports into account.If the quarries are not many may recommend article for publication with /without revision..
East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust
One of my manuscripts received revisions from 5 reviewers and fortunately, the sixth reviewer had not responded. The five reviews were mixed with the majority (3 vs 2) requesting major revisions. I believe that the academic editor opted for 05 reviews as he would have considered that manuscript is original enough to potentially publishable, thus allowing the author to defend his/her manuscript against the majority of negative reviewer comments.
In general, however, the reviewer number is around two (or uncommonly three or four). The surplus reviewers at the initial stages of review are mainly in cases of mixed reviews I feel.
Similar questions and discussions
Related Publications
According to wikipedia, open peer review is a process in which names of peer reviewers of papers submitted to academic journals are disclosed to the authors of the papers in question. Peer reviewing is a tough task, it requires large amounts of knowledge and effort. Reviewers usually work in the same discipline as the authors of the paper under con...
The Information Systems Education Journal (ISEDJ) is a double-blind peer-reviewed academic journal published by EDSIG, the Education Special Interest Group of AITP, the Association of Information Technology Professionals (Chicago, Illinois). The first year of publication was 2003. ISEDJ is published online (http://isedjorg) in connection with ISECO...
Peer review is a new phenomenon in the process of internationalization of academic journals, but also a worldwide problem. In this paper, the development and practical application of peer review system are sort out, which are based on objective data research of domestic and international academic journals; the problems of network online published p...