Timeline for If I refereed a paper at one journal (and it was rejected) should I referee it again when it's sent to another journal?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 7, 2013 at 16:02 | comment | added | Crowley | In the case that the manuscript is same as you recomended to reject, you spare editor's time because no improvement has been done and thus needn't be expected. If the manuscript is improved, you spare editor's time doubting whether they will follow comments or not. Telling when the first manuscript was submitted also gives information about what to expect. I can't see any drawback at all. | |
| Nov 7, 2013 at 15:53 | vote | accept | gammapoint | ||
| Nov 7, 2013 at 15:53 | comment | added | gammapoint | Thanks for the answer Peter. With respect to Chris' question, I think it also matters on the prestige of the journal. The first time I reviewed this paper it was in a higher-impact journal which specifically asked me to evaluate its impact. This was one of the reasons it wasn't suitable for publication. The new journal is lower-impact and thus if the authors have improved the other aspects of the paper I might think it suitable for publication in this journal. | |
| Nov 7, 2013 at 15:24 | comment | added | Peter Jansson | Yes, then I would simply tell the editor that I already reviewed that manuscript, that it was rejected and probably add that I see no reason to redo the review. The situation is an interesting one and I wonder what the editor would do, probably reject it without review (?). | |
| Nov 7, 2013 at 15:18 | comment | added | Chris Gregg | Nice answer. Would your answer change if the manuscript was identical to the previously submitted paper (i.e., if the authors made no effort to improve the paper)? | |
| Nov 7, 2013 at 14:23 | history | answered | Peter Jansson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |