Timeline for Does MDPI systematically choose new reviewers after each round in order to speed up the process?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 16, 2023 at 14:23 | history | edited | Anyon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Typo in title
|
| Jul 23, 2022 at 3:50 | comment | added | Anonymous Physicist | Previous meta-discussion: academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4879/… | |
| Jul 23, 2022 at 3:47 | answer | added | Anonymous Physicist | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 20, 2022 at 14:14 | comment | added | user9482 | I believe the answer to the question in the title is "no". I've received review requests for a second review when I had reviewed the manuscript in the first round. However, the editor decides and the numerous editors of the numerous MDPI journals might follow different practices. | |
| Jul 20, 2022 at 12:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackAcademia/status/1549725818796097537 | ||
| Jul 20, 2022 at 11:17 | comment | added | Allure | @Younes You could argue that, but there is a benefit in that processing times drop a lot which is good for the authors. MDPI definitely have unusual practices (but note "unusual" is not synonymous with "bad"). Have you seen my answer here? academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5466/… | |
| Jul 20, 2022 at 11:04 | comment | added | Yacine | @Allure Yes, the reviewers offer only a recommendation and the decision is under the editor's hands only but this is not how to acknowledge the voluntary effort of the reviewers and how to improve the quality of publications. I think MDPI (in particular) has some unusual practices compared to other publishers. | |
| Jul 20, 2022 at 11:03 | history | edited | Sursula | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Jul 20, 2022 at 11:02 | comment | added | gogoolplex | Ok, but I find it still very strange that my request was ignored. Authors even had some additional questions to me which I had no way to answer. Also I can not see what the editor wrote to the authors or on which bases they decided for publication. So maybe its the editor who decided, but still the lack of communication and push for speed is enough to keep me away from MDPI. For a good and open review process see copernicus publications, for example: tc.copernicus.org/articles/16/2655/2022/… | |
| Jul 20, 2022 at 10:56 | history | edited | gogoolplex | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
You can see what the other reviewers wrote. Its a bit hidden but it is there
|
| Jul 20, 2022 at 10:35 | comment | added | lighthouse keeper | The appropriateness of not sending the paper for another review largely depends on the nature of the comments (and the expertise of the editor). In the case of a major revision, it would be very untypical for a serious journal to not send it for another review. | |
| Jul 20, 2022 at 10:30 | comment | added | JRN | Is it in the policy of the journal that the author is required to revise the manuscript if a reviewer recommends it? | |
| Jul 20, 2022 at 10:13 | comment | added | Allure | @gogoolplex All the same, reviewers only offer recommendations; the editor is the one who makes the final decision. I don't see why you don't think this is commonly done either, e.g. academia.stackexchange.com/questions/135326/…. | |
| Jul 20, 2022 at 10:02 | comment | added | gogoolplex | @Allure ok, but thats not how i think review should be done, and is not done commonly by other publishers. Also its not transparent and they even ignored my request to review the revision. | |
| Jul 20, 2022 at 9:43 | comment | added | Allure | Obvious explanation is that there is no second review round, and the editor decided the revisions by the authors are good enough. | |
| Jul 20, 2022 at 8:57 | comment | added | Prof. Santa Claus | Yup. MDPI has dodgy practices. Once they stole my colleague's list of topics for a special issue and gave it to another person. | |
| S Jul 20, 2022 at 8:32 | review | First questions | |||
| Jul 20, 2022 at 10:04 | |||||
| S Jul 20, 2022 at 8:32 | history | asked | gogoolplex | CC BY-SA 4.0 |