Page 17 - Straive eBook: Redefining Your Peer Review Experience

Straive | Redefining Your Peer Review Experience 17

Re-review

Typically the JEO will check revised articles to
ensure compliance with the journal’s requirements
(the presence of a response to reviewers, for
example), but from there, the way in which an
editor handles a revised article is just as variable
as any other part of the peer review workflow.
Some will always send the article back to
reviewers, no matter how minor the changes
requested, while others will always assess the
revised article themselves even where the
revisions were extensive. It is our view that minor
revision should indicate that the editor intends to
assess the revised article themselves, while major
revision suggests an intention to request re-review.
As well as reducing the time from receipt of the
revised article to editorial decision, this approach
reduces the burden on peer reviewers.

If the article is sent for a second round of peer reviews, it is usually returned to the original
reviewers. This does of course open the question about when it is appropriate to seek another
opinion, not to mention what precisely the reviewers should be checking in the second (or
later!) round of revision. Whether the authors have adequately responded to the original
reviews is the logical answer, but some reviewers find further amendments in their second
review, and when another opinion has been sought, this issue is exacerbated, resulting in
further rounds of revision being required. Editors and publishers are understandably focused
on ensuring the best possible quality articles are accepted for publication, so finding new
areas of concern in a second review can be valid, particularly where authors have made
changes not originally requested by the reviewers. However, if an editor regularly returns
articles to reviewers and requests multiple rounds of revision, it may be an indication to the
publisher that the editor requires support to feel confident in their own decision-making skills.

Suggestions

• Create an agreed workflow which minimises re-review requests and rounds
of revision.
• Train the JEO to spot unnecessary rounds of re-review and revision.
• Create editorial training available to editors at any time that encourages
self-confidence in decision making.