13

Are reviewers allowed to express surprise to an editor? I was shocked by the ‘minor revision’ decision for an article I reviewed. Reviewer 1 was positive and listed a few minor points.

My review and Reviewer 3 included extensive comments that would require ‘major revision.’

The number of words for my review and that of reviewer 3 came to 1800 words. Reviewer 3's review had two opening paragraphs, and then 11 numbered action items.

My own review opened with a positive sentence about the value of the topic. But my very next sentence (in its own paragraph) was: "I remain unconvinced that substantial new knowledge has been produced.” I then spent 700 words defending this, including four practical ideas for providing value to readers. The implication of my points is, if implemented, providing this value could make the article be worth publishing.

I worry I should have opened with a criticism, because the editor may have been skimming the review and the editor's takeaway was then my positive comment?

With this, I am a first-time academia.stack exchange poster. I have been reviewing manuscripts for 35 years and I have never seen a minor revision determination when reviewers had this much to say.

Not only that, there was no substantial points in the decision letter.

The "Dear Reviewers" letter from the editor contained:

Thank you for reviewing the manuscript XXX. We greatly appreciate the voluntary contribution that each reviewer gives to the Journal and hope that we may continue to seek your assistance with the refereeing process for XXX

The decision that we arrived at for this article was: Minor Revision, basing the decision on your review and those of the other referees.

A copy of your comments to the author, along with those of any other referees, follows at the end of this letter for your information. Any files that referees uploaded for the attention of the author are attached as a PDF proof.

Improve this question
7
  • 3
    Is ‘allowed’ the word you meant?
    – A rural reader
    Commented Aug 18 at 18:04
  • 9
    Just noting that this is a common practice of predatory journals (to get reviews but send every paper for only minor revisions regardless of the recommendations).
    – Significance
    Commented Aug 18 at 20:56
  • 3
    I am not nearly as experienced as you, but the decision letters I've seen rarely contain much more than a fluffy statement about the changes you need to make. Is this a journal in a field you regularly review and work in?
    – Azor Ahai -him-
    Commented Aug 18 at 21:46
  • 3
    I'm not the OP, but in my field, "major revisions" means that it is definitely going back for a second round of review (and maybe more than one more round). "Minor revisions" means that it is unlikely to have a substantial re-review. The editor might run the revision past the reviewers as a courtesy or might just make a decision on the revision without further review.
    – Significance
    Commented Aug 19 at 5:29
  • 2
    This exactly has happened to me with MDPI as a reviewer and while technically allowed, was the last straw for me to avoid the publisher like the plague. Some editors may disagree with you, but ignoring/not acknowledging your reviews in the response smells predatory, and would suggest you refuse to review and publish in this journal.
    – Ander Biguri
    Commented Aug 19 at 13:42

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
6

I think there can be different in the definition of 'major' and 'minor' between you and the editor, and you could definitely express your opinion. As some fields had a tradition that minor revision may not send back to the reviewer again, you may even want to voice it out, if you really want to read the revision.

For example, you may think the number of items that required changes are large so it is 'major'. But the editor may think that overall the paper is methodologically sound, just need some edits, and changes on the interpretation of results. Therefore it is 'minor'.

I agree with Buffy that unless your comments are ignored, there are not much to concern.

Improve this answer
6

Since it is typical for the journal to send reviewer comments to the author(s) and there is no suggestion here that it hasn't been done in this case, "Minor Review" might be nothing more than noise, or encouragement to the author. They might disagree on impact, of course, and the revisions suggested might be easy to make. You haven't indicated otherwise. And, you are making an assumption on how they came to that characterization. Your disagreement is fine, but don't be so sure you know how they arrived at it. But the characterization itself has no actual impact on future decisions.

I would only be concerned if the editor allowed the authors to ignore reviewer comments, whether the characterization was major or minor revision. You won't know that unless and until you see the next version.

Yes, you can express your "surprise" or even disappointment in the characterization, though I think that the characterization, as such, is largely meaningless without knowing more. You can also refuse to review for this journal in the future. Neither of those is a problem.

Improve this answer
4

Although they're often interpreted differently, 'minor revision' and 'major revision' are functionally the same. In both cases the manuscript is returned to the author, and revisions are expected. If there is a difference at all, it is that the automated deadline when the manuscript is expected back is generally shorter for 'minor revision'.

A 'minor revision' decision is not a sign that the manuscript will be accepted. In other words, 'minor revision' and 'major revision' is arguably just a difference in semantics and personal definition of what is major or minor; what ultimately matters is whether the authors incorporated the changes you requested.

Are the peer reviewers of a journal article allowed to voice surprise to the editor at a "minor revision" decision?

Yes, you are allowed to do this (I've certainly seen similar things before). Just put it in the confidential-to-editor box, since it's got nothing to do with the author.

Improve this answer
2
  • 2
    Your field must work differently than mine. For me, Minor Revisions and Major Revisions are both signs that the paper is very likely to be accepted, and the difference is that Major Revisions require another look by reviewers and Minor Revisions don't (though sometimes they are sent to reviewers anyway). If the editor is not sure the author(s) can make the changes necessary for the paper to be accepted, then the verdict is Reject, sometimes with Encouragement to Resubmit.
    – Alexander Woo
    Commented Aug 19 at 2:54
  • HI Everyone. Thanks for sharing your opinion. I appreciated this point (similar to what a number of peolpe wrote): " would only be concerned if the editor allowed the authors to ignore reviewer comments, whether the characterization was major or minor revision. You won't know that unless and until you see the next version." Agree. But my fear is what some of you noted, that the authors think think the understaking is minor, and that the reviewer might accept without sending the ms back to the reviewers. If my comments and reviewer 3's are not fully addressed, I will complain.
    – Catherine Caldwell-Harris
    Commented Aug 19 at 19:46

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .