Author submits journal version 1
Editor+Reviewer finish review and complain about aspects A, B and C
Author prepares new version addressing A,B and C
Editor+Reviewer finish second review and now complain about aspects D, E and F (completely unrelated to A, B and C).
Author prepares a new version addressing D, E and F
…
This looks like an infinite loop to me! That’s not how I understand a review process. To me, a review process for a journal should have at most two reviewing iterations. In the first one you complain about all things you don’t like about the paper. Then, the author may reply to that and in the second iteration you decide whether the answer (and the corrections on the paper) are satisfactory.
The second iteration is NOT the time to point out new concerns (of course, unless they are related to the modifications on the paper made by the author after the first iteration). If you didn’t do a good job reviewing the paper in the first iteration it’s your fault, not the author’s one. The reviewing process is long enough already. Authors should have a clear view since the beginning of its length. Having three or more reviewer iterations and end up with the paper rejected, apart from pissing you off a lot, usually leaves you with very few alternatives. CS change so fast that after so this time the paper may not be “fashionable” anymore.
Unfortunately, I’m not making this up. Happened to me already twice. And btw the paper was rejected (the second paper is still under review) because, according to the reviewer, we had not properly answered his/her new concerns.
I would argue for tighter editorial control on the reviewing process. I have seen this many times myself (from both sides of the fence, as editor and victim). An editor’s job is more than just blindly accepting what reviewers say and do (and there are lots of good editors who don’t do this!); reviewers can’t see the big picture, only what’s in front of them and annoying them now.
What it often boils down to is that it’s far too easy to find reasons to reject a paper. In the journal reviewing and editorial process, it’s much easier for an editor to apply control laws to manage the process (as opposed to the short conference time scales). This might include throwing out a review and getting another one. But this last option is increasingly difficult as it’s getting harder to find reviewers. Which brings up another potential rant for a future posting: we publish too much!
I totally agree with you Richard. The reviewer may make mistakes but it’s the editor who has the responsibility of controlling the process. I have in the pipe other posts with more examples in this same line.
Also, the fact that, as you say, our community is hypercritical does not help either.
What is the editor’s goal? To increase citation count? To ensure only the very best papers are accepted? In both cases this seems to demand an editor who can predict the future.
Jordi, one possibility is that the original paper was dreadful, but the reviewer too polite to say so, so more excuses not to accept have to be found.
Neil,
If the paper was dreadful then the editor did even a poorer job. When a paper is bad the best thing to do is to reject it right away. Wasting everybody’s time by keeping the process alive and finding new excuses every time instead of rejecting it, it is for sure the worst thing an editor can do.
It’s not easy for an editor to decide whether a paper should be accepted or not but at least the editor is expected to b e able to make a decision
Err, I liked your blog but I cannot find a “to subscribe” link on it…
In the right column you’ll see a meta section with a Entries RSS link that you can use to subscribe. Thanks for your interest!
Pingback: Bad reviewing patterns: Reviewing the wrong paper | My Research Rants
Pingback: RR : Do we need an alternative to peer-reviewed journals? | My Research Rants
Pingback: Nonsense reviews are a global problem… | My Research Rants