I rejected a paper after careful review and consideration, writing six pages to justify my decision. In less than 24 h I have received a petition to change my verdict to major changes. The rationale is that the other two reviewers have given major changes and that my review is too harsh and not well enough substantiated.
Thank you
I have written quite a few reviews, with a significant percentage of them recommending rejection. Editors often made the decision to reject; sometimes they deviated and asked for major corrections. This is normal — editors have to take reviews into consideration, but are not bound by them. Not a single time have I received a request to change a review.
No, this is not normal, in my opinion. There is no good reason for the editor to ask you to change the review. If the editor believes the paper deserves a major correction, they simply have to make their decision, noting your recommendation.
No. Under no circumstances should an editor disclose the recommendation of other reviewers to you to ask you to amend your recommendation to join the majority. You were asked to express your own opinion, which you did. The editor is trying to receive an unequivocal agreement, which is not necessary and not fair to you. The editor does not have to follow your recommendation, but they have to respect it.
Please make the name of the journal known. I would refrain from ever using the journal(s) which allow such reviewing process to take place.
Under no circumstances should an editor disclose the recommendation of other reviewers to you That is simply false, at least in my field. Reviewers are often expected to discuss the paper and reach consensus. In particular, if one reviewer has a concern, the others are asked to comment on it. In my field, it is expected that you will edit your review after conferring with other reviewers.
Commented
Nov 21, 2018 at 18:22
In my experience, the decision whether to reject an article or request major changes is up to the editor. You, as reviewer, give input on this but the editor has to take the final responsibility. In particular, this means that you don't have to change your verdict for the paper to be given major changes.
This isn't normal. The process I'm familiar with is to simply forward the reject review to the authors along with a letter by the editor saying that "we find your paper acceptable if the reviewers' comments are addressed" etc.
I'd tell the editor your comments are what they are, and he/she doesn't have to follow your recommendation. You might also want to check if they're a predatory journal. I'd probably do the same thing if they are predatory, but it'd still be a good thing to know.
You should change your review if and only if you are honestly convinced that your original review was wrong.
As a reviewer, I have no objection to being overruled by the editor --- even if he accepts without changes a paper that I said should be rejected (or vice versa). That is his right as editor. I would, however, object very strongly to a request to submit a review that does not represent my honest assessment of the paper. In my opinion, it is unethical for an editor to make such a request, and it would be unethical for me to comply with it.
(In your situation, I would also feel somewhat insulted that a six-page report is considered insufficient substantiation.)
- Any further thoughts?
I recommend giving yourself a minimum of 24 hours before you send back a reply. This will make sure you don’t do anything rash or allow emotional issues to dictate your actions.
Just in case you’re one of those people who have a hard time saying “no”, especially to requests coming from figures of authority, it’s good to remind yourself (multiple times if necessary) that you are not required to comply with the request.
Regarding the ethics question, others have addressed this, but I think it’s worth sharpening the ethical lines here a bit. If the request is simply that you reconsider your position (since it is perceived as too harsh by the editor and other reviewers), I think that’s an unusual request but not an unethical one. It is fine (if usually futile) for either the author or the editor to push back and ask you if you might revise your position based on new arguments or because they believe you haven’t given the matter sufficient consideration (which sounds unlikely in this case, but I suppose it’s theoretically possible). The point is that in that case they are asking you to actually change your opinion, not to change your recommendation to something that is different from your true opinion. People do make mistakes and do change their opinions about things in response to feedback. I’m not saying you should change your opinion, just that if you did, I wouldn’t see anything wrong with that.
Now, if on the other hand the request is simply that you revise what you wrote to some specific recommendation regardless of what you actually believe, then such a request is blatantly unethical. Being a reviewer is a position of trust, and the whole refereeing system is built around the premise that editors, authors and readers can trust that referees are stating their true opinions rather than being influenced by irrelevant factors. Writing something that is not your opinion would be a betrayal of that trust, and undermines the entire system of academic publishing. I assume that such a betrayal is not something you would want to be a part of.
Ultimately, the decision is up to the editor and in this case they disagree with your assessment. This is not uncommon -- sometimes the reviewer is wrong or it could simply be that the reviewer has high standards and this is a low-quality journal. It sounds like the editor thinks the authors should be given an opportunity to address your concerns, which is reasonable.
Is this normal? Yes. The editor makes the final decision and often deviates from the reviews (indeed reviews are rarely unanimous, so deviation from some reviews is necessary). The editor wants to send the authors more consistent reviews, in order to minimize author complaints. And if your review seems excessively harsh, the editor may want that toned down to spare the authors' feelings (they are human too).
Is this ethical? To some extent it's just necessary. Some reviews do need to be fixed. If you feel that it is going too far and you are being asked to lie, rather than just change the tone, then you can push back and explain why you disagree. If you really feel that your input is being ignored, then refuse to review for that journal again.
Any further thoughts? Editors might even edit the reviews themselves without consulting the reviewers, since that might be quicker and easier. However, I think that is a bit inappropriate and disrespectful to the reviewer.
I have received a petition to change my verdict to major changes. The rationale is that the other two reviewers have given major changes and that my review is too harsh and not...substantiated.
A more precise understanding of the circumstances is necessary to answer your questions. I wonder whether the editor is trying to establish whether to outright reject or whether to offer major corrections. Since you're the only reviewer that recommends rejection, it is absolutely normal (and ethical) that the editor is consulting you. They want you to further help them in making their decision.
First of all, I am assuming that the editor is explicitly primarily asking you to change your verdict, and not to reconsider specific rationales of your review in light of the other reviews or to phrase your review more friendly or to substantiate some of your claims.
If this is the case, then it indeed raises some red flags as it is completely unnecessary in a healthy situation: All decision-making processes I know do not allow reviewers to decide a paper’s fate directly. Instead the editor decides on base of the reviews or it is even the editor-in-chief who decides on basis of the editor’s recommendation, which in turn is based on the reviews. Thus, if the editor wants a major revision, there is no need to change your verdict – in particular since this is the least surprising decision anyway, given two reviews recommending major revision and one recommending rejection.
This poses the question why the editor would like your verdict changed, and all I can think about is that they want to bypass some sort of quality control, for example:
The decision is upon the editor-in-chief and the editor wishes to illegitimately improve the chances of the paper.
The journal is one that publishes reviews, and the editor expects that accepting this paper given your current review could negatively affect them.
The journal is rather competitive and has some strict unpublished rules that would force the editor to reject the paper with only one reject recommendation. In this case, it would be completely out of line for the editor to meddle like this. Of course, one may consider such rules harmful, but if that’s beyond your responsibility.
I would thus recommend to do the following:
Given that journal editors are notorious for (almost surely) never changing their "reject" verdict (which is a policy originating in the long-held belief of publishers that writers of any sort are "immature" creatures even though talented, and so they are to be treated with strict authority to keep them in check), it is poetically unjust for editors to ask from reviewers to change their reject verdict.
Serving poetic justice alone demands from you to reject the editor's submitted request, let alone all the other aspects of the matter already analytically discussed in the answers here.
Outright rejecting a paper denies authors the opportunity to correct issues raised by reviewers (and to publish at that venue). By comparison, major revisions afford such an opportunity. Authors might not be able to make the sufficient corrections, hence, reviewers may still reject. But, if they do make sufficient corrections, then the community benefits from the value added by reviewers. By comparison, no such value is guaranteed from an outright rejection, because authors may simply resubmit elsewhere without modification.
Perhaps the editor is trying to maximise community value.
