tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post6268213926107466065..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: What if Authors could Respond to Referee Comments?Richard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-59226895869557208752020-07-17T06:24:01.466-04:002020-07-17T06:24:01.466-04:00Hi Richard, in my academic field (theoretical phys...Hi Richard, in my academic field (theoretical physics), this is common practice.<br /><br />Even after a straight-up rejection (i.e. not a recommendation to R&R), authors are usually able to resubmit their paper to the same journal, with comments replying to the referee(s). Usually, the paper and the response are then sent back to the same referees (or in some cases, new ones) who write a new report and decide whether to modify their recommendation. Editor permitting, there might even be a 3rd round of review.<br /><br />When there are multiple referees, they can see the previous reports of the other referees as well, and if they like comment on whether they agree with their criticisms.<br /><br />Ultimately it is the editor's decision who to side with, but one can frequently appease the referees by making relatively minor changes to accommodate their points, or by clearly explaining why their objections do not apply.<br /><br />Some journals, like Physical Review, also allow for a scientific-based appeal after all this, which goes to a member of an editorial board who can review the original editor's decision. Researchers rarely attempt this, since it's usually easier to just submit to some other journal, but I have successfully appealed one paper by this method.Aron Wallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10552077344304954390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-9156432984919243332020-07-15T18:12:18.966-04:002020-07-15T18:12:18.966-04:00Ha, very good!Ha, very good!Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-3426461433429817332020-07-15T18:11:31.958-04:002020-07-15T18:11:31.958-04:00Thanks Doug, that's very helpful for perspecti...Thanks Doug, that's very helpful for perspective. (Your third point strikes me as especially important.)Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-83448708609785814222020-07-15T17:47:15.860-04:002020-07-15T17:47:15.860-04:00Let me add one more thing. It seems to be a genera...Let me add one more thing. It seems to be a general misconception that when papers are rejected, the one to blame is the referee or referees who recommended rejection. But I think that it's ultimately the responsibility of the editors. We also read the submissions. We choose who to ask to referee. And we ultimately decide how to weigh all the evidence: the reports, our own assessment of the submission, our assessment of the reports, our assessment of the comments passed on only to us, and our assessment of the reliability of the testimony of the reviewers. So, if your paper is rejected and shouldn't have been, it's the editors who are to blame. Thus, editorial work is a huge responsibility. And we undoubtedly make mistakes. But, in my experience, editors are generally very conscientious and hardworking. Doug Portmorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13506624812156829116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-42359855759560449082020-07-15T17:34:27.793-04:002020-07-15T17:34:27.793-04:00A few things: (1) I'm not sure that this is tr...A few things: (1) I'm not sure that this is true: "the top journals...tend to outright reject any paper that doesn't receive uniformly positive peer reviews." This is not true with respect to the two journals for which I've served as an Associate Editor. It may be that the default is to reject a submission with two reviewers who each recommend reject, but, even in such cases, there is usually a lag time that's in place so that the associate editor responsible for that submission can read the reports and intervene if they want to before a rejection is sent out by the managing editor. (2) You ask: "How could the journal know that the report was confused?" The answer is because the handling editor has read the submission themselves and can see that the objection raised is confused. Another possibility is that, after a rejection is sent out, the author sends a note to the handling editor anonymously through the managing editor explaining the referee's mistake. [Authors should do this very sparingly and only in the most egregious cases.] (3) Many authors, like yourself, seem to assume that editors reject a paper only on the basis of what the reviewers say in the comments that they pass on to the authors. This is not true. The handling editor reads the paper him- or herself. The handling editor also reads the comments that are for the editor's eyes only. Sometimes, the handling editor gets input from other associate editors. And sometimes the handling editor gets other feedback from the reviewers -- e.g., a numerical assessment of its likely importance. In many cases that I've been involved with, the handling editor has noted that a reviewer's objection is off-the-mark, but has decided on the basis of their own reading and on other feedback that they received that the paper just isn't likely to be important enough to warrant giving it a revise and resubmit. (4) Lastly, it's not a reviewer's job to outline every sufficient reason for rejecting a paper in the comments she passes on to the author. As a reviewer, what I put down in the comments for the author are those comments that are most constructive, helpful, tactful, and easily articulated. I don't list every reason or set of reasons that I take to be sufficient for rejecting a paper. So, editors have to give weight not only to the particular objections that the reviewer has passed on to the author, but also on their overall judgment and on any further less tactful comments that the reviewers passed on only to the editor. Doug Portmorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13506624812156829116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-16346686465716106462020-07-15T17:06:08.437-04:002020-07-15T17:06:08.437-04:00Some of my colleagues and I have joked about setti...Some of my colleagues and I have joked about setting up a Court of Philosophical Appeals. Disgruntled authors can submit their papers, along with the referee reports... we review the case and decide whether to rule in favor of the author or Reviewer #2.zachbarnett47@gmail.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15935211218691938589noreply@blogger.com