What happens when the same reviewer reviews your paper every time you submit and ruins the chances of its acceptance? Read on to find out.
Case: An author’s paper was rejected by a journal after peer review. On receiving reviewer comments, the author was surprised to see that while two of the three reviewers seemed to be happy with the overall quality of the paper and had suggested minor revisions, Reviewer #3 had given extremely negative comments, stating that the paper was of very poor quality. According to this reviewer, the paper lacked novelty, needed more experiments and language editing, and was not publishable in its current form. The author revised the manuscript thoroughly, addressing every concern of the reviewers, including Reviewer #3 and also had it professionally edited.
He then re-submitted the paper to the same journal as a new submission. However, the paper was rejected again, and the reviewer comments were similar to those received during the first submission. While two reviewers gave very positive comments and were clearly happy with the paper, the Reviewer #3 gave extremely negative comments, finding multiple flaws with the manuscript and recommending rejection. The author, who was keen on publishing his paper in the journal and had spent a lot of time and effort revising the paper, was very upset and approached Editage Insights for advice.
Action: On going through the reviewer comments, our experts felt that many of Reviewer #3’s comments, particularly for the second submission, were unreasonable. What is more, there were similarities in the writing style of both reviewers, indicating that Reviewer #3 was the same both times. We advised the author to appeal against the editorial decision, providing a point-by-point rebuttal refuting the comments of Reviewer #3 and providing supporting evidence for each point. We also asked the author to request the Editor to change Reviewer #3 if the paper was sent for another round of peer review.
The editor replied within a few days stating that the paper has been sent for re-review, and this time, to a completely new set of reviewers. Once the author received the peer reviewer comments, he was happy to see that all the reviewers had approved of the paper, suggesting only a few minor revisions. Once these revisions were incorporated, the paper was finally accepted!
The editor later communicated to the author that she had received similar complaints about this reviewer from several other authors, and had therefore decided to remove him from her list.
Summary: Most journals have a clear policy and process for appeals, and all appeals are dealt with under this process. If an author strongly feels that the decision about his or her manuscript has not been correct, he or she has the right to appeal against this decision. Usually, the process for appeals is more rigorous than that for a regular submission. An appeal is assigned to multiple editors who assess the manuscript, the peer review reports/comments, and the author’s rebuttal before providing their individual comments on it. The editors then discuss their views and arrive at a consensus about the paper. If the editors feel the need for a re-evaluation, they can send the paper for another round of review. Thus, the appeals process is usually very rigorous and fair.
There is a general misconception among authors that appeals do not work; however, if the case is strong enough and the author is able to provide a strong and objective rebuttal with supporting data or evidence for every point they are refuting, editors will definitely give it a fair chance.
However, this does not mean that every time an author gets a rejection, he or she should appeal against the editorial decision. This is a special benefit that journals provide, and should be used with the utmost discretion. If an author genuinely feels that the evaluation has been unfair, he or she should first take the opinion of a supervisor, senior colleague, or some other expert to confirm that his or her judgment has been correct. Appeals should be made only if the case is very strong. Additionally, authors should maintain a polite and objective tone in their communication and refrain from using accusatory or emotional language.
You might also like to read the following articles: