Peer reviewing

[Bill Croft]

I think that eliminating the category of "revise and resubmit" is, in 
effect, saying that the author is always right, and the reviewers are 
always wrong. I don't share that view. Sometimes the author is right, 
as Martin has been saying in his messages, but sometimes the 
reviewers are right. I have always felt that my papers were improved 
after "revise and resubmit".

But this is where the editor's role comes in. The author doesn't see 
the reviewers' reports until the editor receives them and passes them 
on. At that point the editor may judge whether, in his/her view, the 
weight of the evidence supports the author's or the reviewers' 
perspective, and communicate this to the author (partly by choosing 
"revise and resubmit" or "accept upon revision"). Also, editors 
nowadays almost always ask the author to explain how and why s/he 
revised the manuscript upon resubmission. That allows the reviewers 
as well as the editor to judge whether the revisions are sufficient.

Bill


>Bill Croft wrote:
>>But the main value for "revise and resubmit" is that one doesn't 
>>know how much an author really will revise the manuscript. Not 
>>infrequently, I receive "revised" manuscripts which had significant 
>>problems where the author has merely added a few footnotes to the 
>>original submission. In those cases, I do feel that I have wasted 
>>my precious time, as Lachlan puts it, and I will recommend 
>>rejection.
>What Bill describes as "the main value" of R&R is the main problem, 
>in my view.
>
>In the cases mentioned above, the author probably limited herself to 
>adding a few footnotes because she simply didn't agree with the 
>reviewer that "the manuscript had significant problems". And often 
>the author is right, not the reviewer. Reviewers are not more 
>knowledgeable than authors; in fact, they generally know much less 
>about the paper's topic than the author.
>
>But predicting whether the editor will overrule the reviewers or not 
>is very difficult, so should the author resubmit? This is extremely 
>tricky, and I think many papers are delayed because the author is at 
>a loss what to do: Follow a reviewer's proposals she is unhappy 
>with, or try a different journal?
>
>So I think a new approach that only has "accept" and "reject" would 
>make everybody's lives easier.
>
>Martin