Asked again to review a paper, when the authors don't wish to modify it
I have received a manuscript to review for a journal. The interesting thing is, I had already reviewed this article (exact same title, abstract and author list, almost exact same content) for another journal a few weeks ago where I recommended that it be published, but only after major revisions of both form and content. When I first reviewed it, I wrote a two-page review, listing some questions and several “actionable” comments, ranging from some concerns about exactness of the text (some conclusions didn't seem fully backed by the results) all the way down to trivial stuff (grammar, a few typos, graphic issues with the figures, etc.).
Now, the manuscript has come to me for review again, but it is almost unchanged from the first version. None of the serious stuff has been addressed, and even most of the trivial stuff was not fixed (there's at least one remaining typo, and the figures still aren't fully legible). However, I think this behavior from the authors is clearly a bad signal, which should be somehow conveyed to the editor: they're not willing to amend their work, and would rather do some journal-shopping.
What would you suggest me to do? Should I just re-send my earlier review? Add a note to the editor about my knowledge of the “history” of the paper? Or maybe even include it in my review, so the authors are aware that people know of their behavior, and maybe feel bad enough to change their ways?
PS: I wrote it in the present tense, but it's actually a story from my past. I'm not sure I did the right thing at the time, and I think it's better to actually formulate it as an open question…
3 Answers
Personally, I would inform the editors of both journals. For the new editor, I would attach your earlier review, and recommend rejection.
Then it's up to the new editor to decide what to do in this situation. This falls in the category of ethical problems, and I think most journals recommend that reviewers contact the editor immediately in such a situation. Perhaps the journal has a policy for this, or the editor may discuss the matter with other editors or the chief editor.
Let me add why I find it unethical. Peer review relies upon the volunteer labour of anonymous reviewers. Reviewers may invest significant time, and do not really get anything in return. If authors of a manuscript completely ignore reviews, and instead submit an unchanged manuscript somewhere else, I would, as a reviewer, be quite annoyed. At the very least they could reply to the reviews, state point-by-point that they disagree, refuse to change anything and then submit it somewhere else; but completely ignoring is wasting peoples time.
I was recently on the something like the other end of this: a paper I wrote was rejected with a number of comments and one major objection to the content. I made the small changes, but not the big one, and resubmitted to another journal. The new journal sent it back to the same referee.
The referee may well have felt I was engaged in journal shopping; in fact, in response to the report, I'd consulted with other people in the area, and gotten very positive feedback in support of the way the paper was written. I therefore thought it was reasonable to try again with a different journal, since there seemed to be genuine disagreement over the right approach.
The situation was handled quite well, and I'd recommend something like it to anyone on the other end: the editor was notified, and made the decision to ask for the report from the original referee, but also got a second opinion from a new referee.
In this case the story has a happy ending: the original referee didn't just resubmit a variant of the original report, but went above and beyond by explaining their main objection more clearly. The new explanation actually convinced me, where the old one hadn't, and I made the changes.
The moral being, the author may have actually taken the referee report seriously but honestly disagreed. That's not always the case, but in that situation you should consider the possibility---and that's why you definitely want to notify the editor, who should probably get a second opinion.
added: Just to be clear, I'm trying to address the general case of a referee in this situation, not just the particular instance that happened to F'x. There's a range of possible behavior by the paper author which could sound similar to what F'x is describing, and which some future referee reading this question might be experiencing, from the case where the author has resubmitted a paper unchanged to the case where the authors have incorporated many minor suggestions and given careful consideration before not taking some more important ones. F'x is describing a situation which sounds like it's closer to the first, I'm describing one which leans closer to the second.
A particular referee, in a particular case, may be able to judge which scenario is more likely, but it doesn't matter for the referee, because the correct answer is the same: notify the editor.
I see nothing wrong with authors choosing to submit to a new journal instead of making changes suggested by reviewers, although not fixing typos just seems silly. I also think that if authors choose to go this route, they deserve to get a new batch of reviewers. While I like to think of myself as reasonable and impartial, I am happy to have authors confirm this by submitting someplace else. When I receive requests to review a manuscript that I have already reviewed, I turn the review down with a note to the AE that I have already reviewed the manuscript for another journal. I do not to say what journal or anything about my recommendation.
If for some reason I agree to review a manuscript and later find out that I have previously reviewed it, I would immediately contact the AE and explain what has happened. I would offer to provide a revised review. I would acknowledge in the review that I was reviewer N for the previous journal.
Have a similar question?
Ask the community →