Timeline for Asked again to review a paper, when the authors don't wish to modify it
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 20, 2023 at 9:37 | comment | added | WetlabStudent | This is by far the best answer to the question, because it addresses it from both sides | |
| Jan 14, 2013 at 17:40 | history | edited | Henry | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 883 characters in body
|
| Jan 14, 2013 at 17:34 | comment | added | F'x | Yeah, that has happened to me as well once or twice. What I then do (and advise others to do) is first to make your case to the editor in a reply (list what you are willing to change, and what you want to keep unmodified). Then, either they accept the amended manuscript, or they reject it (ask you to modify further than you want to). If you arrive at that point, resubmitting to another journal is fair game, I think. But that's a pretty different situation from the one I ask about in my question… | |
| Jan 14, 2013 at 17:33 | comment | added | Henry | @gerrit: If the editor asks for a response, the appropriate thing to do would be to explain why the suggestion hasn't been taken. But I think we're discussing the situation where the editor has already rejected, in which case a rebuttal is no longer appropriate. | |
| Jan 14, 2013 at 17:11 | comment | added | gerrit | the author may have actually taken the referee report seriously but honestly disagreed, in that case, they could at the very least have informed the referee, via the editor. No loss in replying we disagree with major point X, and if the editor then rejects it, to then submit it to another journal. That's different from what @Fx describes. | |
| Jan 14, 2013 at 16:28 | history | answered | Henry | CC BY-SA 3.0 |