Timeline for Associate editor's dilemma with inconsistent first/second round review
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 27, 2015 at 12:14 | vote | accept | Troy Woo | ||
| Jan 24, 2015 at 16:20 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackAcademia/status/559022969998299136 | ||
| Jan 24, 2015 at 15:12 | answer | added | jakebeal | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jan 24, 2015 at 14:24 | comment | added | Troy Woo | @CapeCode Thank you for your answer. But what shall I do with the inconsistency of one reviewer's recommendation? It has to be properly addressed. | |
| Jan 24, 2015 at 14:18 | comment | added | Cape Code | You can certainly reject the paper on the ground that a reviewer is dissatisfied with the second version, especially if you provide a few of your own arguments. Be fair to your readership, not only to the authors. | |
| Jan 24, 2015 at 13:39 | history | edited | Troy Woo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 13 characters in body
|
| Jan 24, 2015 at 13:37 | answer | added | o-0 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 24, 2015 at 13:11 | review | First posts | |||
| Jan 24, 2015 at 13:22 | |||||
| Jan 24, 2015 at 13:10 | history | asked | Troy Woo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |