Why would the editor in chief add a new reviewer after the first round of revision?
I have a manuscript submitted in a journal, and there is a newly-added reviewer after the first round of revision, which is surprising for me. The three other reviewers remain the same in the second round (this round) and agree with acceptance of the manuscript.
I don't know what reason is behind adding a new reviewer. Any thoughts?
publications journals peer-review
New contributor
add a comment |
I have a manuscript submitted in a journal, and there is a newly-added reviewer after the first round of revision, which is surprising for me. The three other reviewers remain the same in the second round (this round) and agree with acceptance of the manuscript.
I don't know what reason is behind adding a new reviewer. Any thoughts?
publications journals peer-review
New contributor
add a comment |
I have a manuscript submitted in a journal, and there is a newly-added reviewer after the first round of revision, which is surprising for me. The three other reviewers remain the same in the second round (this round) and agree with acceptance of the manuscript.
I don't know what reason is behind adding a new reviewer. Any thoughts?
publications journals peer-review
New contributor
I have a manuscript submitted in a journal, and there is a newly-added reviewer after the first round of revision, which is surprising for me. The three other reviewers remain the same in the second round (this round) and agree with acceptance of the manuscript.
I don't know what reason is behind adding a new reviewer. Any thoughts?
publications journals peer-review
publications journals peer-review
New contributor
New contributor
edited 4 hours ago
jakebeal
146k31527768
146k31527768
New contributor
asked 6 hours ago
Bagher erfanianBagher erfanian
112
112
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
While this is rare, it's not necessarily bad, and probably reflects more on the associate editor or the reviewers than you.
One of the jobs of an editor is to ensure that reviewers are sufficiently well qualified, objective, and thorough in their evaluation of a manuscript. Likewise, an editor-in-chief needs to ensure the handling editor is doing their job well as well.
It's hard to say without more details, but my guess on the most likely cause of this situation is that there was some issue with the original set of reviewers, such as:
- Too many were your recommended reviewers
- There was a critical missing perspective
- One or more of the reviewers turned in a low-quality review (which the editor might have forced them to improve before it got to you)
- The journal usually requires more than three reviews
This could be caused by bad choices by the handling editor or by having more than three reviewers originally assigned but some failing to return reviews.
Whatever the case may be, I would recommend not worrying about it too much. You can inquire with the editor if you wish, but don't be surprised if you don't get a particularly informative response (especially if the reason is a mistake they might feel embarrassed by).
Bottom line: it's not so strange, and your paper is probably still in good shape, though its fate is never certain until accepted.
It is surprising to me because the comments of this newly-added reviewer are way too much general and unspecific.
– Bagher erfanian
4 hours ago
@Baghererfanian Maybe the journal just prefers to have four reviewers, then.
– jakebeal
3 hours ago
add a comment |
There are two possibilities
a reviewer dropped and needed to be replaced.
the editor needed to get someone with specific content or methodological expertise.
Those are the two most common reasons on why you see a change of reviewers. Sometimes you use a method and all three reviewers say they are not comfortable reviewing it.
Jaret
1
Or the editor just didn't find someone's review helpful enough.
– Buffy
4 hours ago
All reviewers remain in the second round. Unfortunately, the comments of the new reviewer show that he is unfamiliar with our work :(
– Bagher erfanian
4 hours ago
add a comment |
It's definitely unusual. We could speculate all kinds of reasons (innocent or nefarious). But you should be capable of brainstorming the same.
You should send an email to the editor asking for an explanation.
New contributor
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "415"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Bagher erfanian is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125108%2fwhy-would-the-editor-in-chief-add-a-new-reviewer-after-the-first-round-of-revisi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
While this is rare, it's not necessarily bad, and probably reflects more on the associate editor or the reviewers than you.
One of the jobs of an editor is to ensure that reviewers are sufficiently well qualified, objective, and thorough in their evaluation of a manuscript. Likewise, an editor-in-chief needs to ensure the handling editor is doing their job well as well.
It's hard to say without more details, but my guess on the most likely cause of this situation is that there was some issue with the original set of reviewers, such as:
- Too many were your recommended reviewers
- There was a critical missing perspective
- One or more of the reviewers turned in a low-quality review (which the editor might have forced them to improve before it got to you)
- The journal usually requires more than three reviews
This could be caused by bad choices by the handling editor or by having more than three reviewers originally assigned but some failing to return reviews.
Whatever the case may be, I would recommend not worrying about it too much. You can inquire with the editor if you wish, but don't be surprised if you don't get a particularly informative response (especially if the reason is a mistake they might feel embarrassed by).
Bottom line: it's not so strange, and your paper is probably still in good shape, though its fate is never certain until accepted.
It is surprising to me because the comments of this newly-added reviewer are way too much general and unspecific.
– Bagher erfanian
4 hours ago
@Baghererfanian Maybe the journal just prefers to have four reviewers, then.
– jakebeal
3 hours ago
add a comment |
While this is rare, it's not necessarily bad, and probably reflects more on the associate editor or the reviewers than you.
One of the jobs of an editor is to ensure that reviewers are sufficiently well qualified, objective, and thorough in their evaluation of a manuscript. Likewise, an editor-in-chief needs to ensure the handling editor is doing their job well as well.
It's hard to say without more details, but my guess on the most likely cause of this situation is that there was some issue with the original set of reviewers, such as:
- Too many were your recommended reviewers
- There was a critical missing perspective
- One or more of the reviewers turned in a low-quality review (which the editor might have forced them to improve before it got to you)
- The journal usually requires more than three reviews
This could be caused by bad choices by the handling editor or by having more than three reviewers originally assigned but some failing to return reviews.
Whatever the case may be, I would recommend not worrying about it too much. You can inquire with the editor if you wish, but don't be surprised if you don't get a particularly informative response (especially if the reason is a mistake they might feel embarrassed by).
Bottom line: it's not so strange, and your paper is probably still in good shape, though its fate is never certain until accepted.
It is surprising to me because the comments of this newly-added reviewer are way too much general and unspecific.
– Bagher erfanian
4 hours ago
@Baghererfanian Maybe the journal just prefers to have four reviewers, then.
– jakebeal
3 hours ago
add a comment |
While this is rare, it's not necessarily bad, and probably reflects more on the associate editor or the reviewers than you.
One of the jobs of an editor is to ensure that reviewers are sufficiently well qualified, objective, and thorough in their evaluation of a manuscript. Likewise, an editor-in-chief needs to ensure the handling editor is doing their job well as well.
It's hard to say without more details, but my guess on the most likely cause of this situation is that there was some issue with the original set of reviewers, such as:
- Too many were your recommended reviewers
- There was a critical missing perspective
- One or more of the reviewers turned in a low-quality review (which the editor might have forced them to improve before it got to you)
- The journal usually requires more than three reviews
This could be caused by bad choices by the handling editor or by having more than three reviewers originally assigned but some failing to return reviews.
Whatever the case may be, I would recommend not worrying about it too much. You can inquire with the editor if you wish, but don't be surprised if you don't get a particularly informative response (especially if the reason is a mistake they might feel embarrassed by).
Bottom line: it's not so strange, and your paper is probably still in good shape, though its fate is never certain until accepted.
While this is rare, it's not necessarily bad, and probably reflects more on the associate editor or the reviewers than you.
One of the jobs of an editor is to ensure that reviewers are sufficiently well qualified, objective, and thorough in their evaluation of a manuscript. Likewise, an editor-in-chief needs to ensure the handling editor is doing their job well as well.
It's hard to say without more details, but my guess on the most likely cause of this situation is that there was some issue with the original set of reviewers, such as:
- Too many were your recommended reviewers
- There was a critical missing perspective
- One or more of the reviewers turned in a low-quality review (which the editor might have forced them to improve before it got to you)
- The journal usually requires more than three reviews
This could be caused by bad choices by the handling editor or by having more than three reviewers originally assigned but some failing to return reviews.
Whatever the case may be, I would recommend not worrying about it too much. You can inquire with the editor if you wish, but don't be surprised if you don't get a particularly informative response (especially if the reason is a mistake they might feel embarrassed by).
Bottom line: it's not so strange, and your paper is probably still in good shape, though its fate is never certain until accepted.
answered 4 hours ago
jakebealjakebeal
146k31527768
146k31527768
It is surprising to me because the comments of this newly-added reviewer are way too much general and unspecific.
– Bagher erfanian
4 hours ago
@Baghererfanian Maybe the journal just prefers to have four reviewers, then.
– jakebeal
3 hours ago
add a comment |
It is surprising to me because the comments of this newly-added reviewer are way too much general and unspecific.
– Bagher erfanian
4 hours ago
@Baghererfanian Maybe the journal just prefers to have four reviewers, then.
– jakebeal
3 hours ago
It is surprising to me because the comments of this newly-added reviewer are way too much general and unspecific.
– Bagher erfanian
4 hours ago
It is surprising to me because the comments of this newly-added reviewer are way too much general and unspecific.
– Bagher erfanian
4 hours ago
@Baghererfanian Maybe the journal just prefers to have four reviewers, then.
– jakebeal
3 hours ago
@Baghererfanian Maybe the journal just prefers to have four reviewers, then.
– jakebeal
3 hours ago
add a comment |
There are two possibilities
a reviewer dropped and needed to be replaced.
the editor needed to get someone with specific content or methodological expertise.
Those are the two most common reasons on why you see a change of reviewers. Sometimes you use a method and all three reviewers say they are not comfortable reviewing it.
Jaret
1
Or the editor just didn't find someone's review helpful enough.
– Buffy
4 hours ago
All reviewers remain in the second round. Unfortunately, the comments of the new reviewer show that he is unfamiliar with our work :(
– Bagher erfanian
4 hours ago
add a comment |
There are two possibilities
a reviewer dropped and needed to be replaced.
the editor needed to get someone with specific content or methodological expertise.
Those are the two most common reasons on why you see a change of reviewers. Sometimes you use a method and all three reviewers say they are not comfortable reviewing it.
Jaret
1
Or the editor just didn't find someone's review helpful enough.
– Buffy
4 hours ago
All reviewers remain in the second round. Unfortunately, the comments of the new reviewer show that he is unfamiliar with our work :(
– Bagher erfanian
4 hours ago
add a comment |
There are two possibilities
a reviewer dropped and needed to be replaced.
the editor needed to get someone with specific content or methodological expertise.
Those are the two most common reasons on why you see a change of reviewers. Sometimes you use a method and all three reviewers say they are not comfortable reviewing it.
Jaret
There are two possibilities
a reviewer dropped and needed to be replaced.
the editor needed to get someone with specific content or methodological expertise.
Those are the two most common reasons on why you see a change of reviewers. Sometimes you use a method and all three reviewers say they are not comfortable reviewing it.
Jaret
answered 4 hours ago
JWH2006JWH2006
2,1212514
2,1212514
1
Or the editor just didn't find someone's review helpful enough.
– Buffy
4 hours ago
All reviewers remain in the second round. Unfortunately, the comments of the new reviewer show that he is unfamiliar with our work :(
– Bagher erfanian
4 hours ago
add a comment |
1
Or the editor just didn't find someone's review helpful enough.
– Buffy
4 hours ago
All reviewers remain in the second round. Unfortunately, the comments of the new reviewer show that he is unfamiliar with our work :(
– Bagher erfanian
4 hours ago
1
1
Or the editor just didn't find someone's review helpful enough.
– Buffy
4 hours ago
Or the editor just didn't find someone's review helpful enough.
– Buffy
4 hours ago
All reviewers remain in the second round. Unfortunately, the comments of the new reviewer show that he is unfamiliar with our work :(
– Bagher erfanian
4 hours ago
All reviewers remain in the second round. Unfortunately, the comments of the new reviewer show that he is unfamiliar with our work :(
– Bagher erfanian
4 hours ago
add a comment |
It's definitely unusual. We could speculate all kinds of reasons (innocent or nefarious). But you should be capable of brainstorming the same.
You should send an email to the editor asking for an explanation.
New contributor
add a comment |
It's definitely unusual. We could speculate all kinds of reasons (innocent or nefarious). But you should be capable of brainstorming the same.
You should send an email to the editor asking for an explanation.
New contributor
add a comment |
It's definitely unusual. We could speculate all kinds of reasons (innocent or nefarious). But you should be capable of brainstorming the same.
You should send an email to the editor asking for an explanation.
New contributor
It's definitely unusual. We could speculate all kinds of reasons (innocent or nefarious). But you should be capable of brainstorming the same.
You should send an email to the editor asking for an explanation.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 4 hours ago
guestguest
292
292
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
Bagher erfanian is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Bagher erfanian is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Bagher erfanian is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Bagher erfanian is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125108%2fwhy-would-the-editor-in-chief-add-a-new-reviewer-after-the-first-round-of-revisi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown