Asked again to review a paper, when the authors don't wish to modify it

Question

I have received a manuscript to review for a journal. The interesting thing is, I had already reviewed this article (exact same title, abstract and author list, almost exact same content) for another journal a few weeks ago where I recommended that it be published, but only after major revisions of both form and content. When I first reviewed it, I wrote a two-page review, listing some questions and several “actionable” comments, ranging from some concerns about exactness of the text (some conclusions didn't seem fully backed by the results) all the way down to trivial stuff (grammar, a few typos, graphic issues with the figures, etc.).

Now, the manuscript has come to me for review again, but it is almost unchanged from the first version. None of the serious stuff has been addressed, and even most of the trivial stuff was not fixed (there's at least one remaining typo, and the figures still aren't fully legible). However, I think this behavior from the authors is clearly a bad signal, which should be somehow conveyed to the editor: they're not willing to amend their work, and would rather do some journal-shopping.

What would you suggest me to do? Should I just re-send my earlier review? Add a note to the editor about my knowledge of the “history” of the paper? Or maybe even include it in my review, so the authors are aware that people know of their behavior, and maybe feel bad enough to change their ways?

---

PS: I wrote it in the present tense, but it's actually a story from my past. I'm not sure I did the right thing at the time, and I think it's better to actually formulate it as an open question…

Answer 1

Personally, I would inform the editors of both journals. For the new editor, I would attach your earlier review, and recommend rejection.

Then it's up to the new editor to decide what to do in this situation. This falls in the category of ethical problems, and I think most journals recommend that reviewers contact the editor immediately in such a situation. Perhaps the journal has a policy for this, or the editor may discuss the matter with other editors or the chief editor.

Let me add why I find it unethical. Peer review relies upon the volunteer labour of anonymous reviewers. Reviewers may invest significant time, and do not really get anything in return. If authors of a manuscript completely ignore reviews, and instead submit an unchanged manuscript somewhere else, I would, as a reviewer, be quite annoyed. At the very least they could reply to the reviews, state point-by-point that they disagree, refuse to change anything and then submit it somewhere else; but completely ignoring is wasting peoples time.

Answer 2

I was recently on the something like the other end of this: a paper I wrote was rejected with a number of comments and one major objection to the content. I made the small changes, but not the big one, and resubmitted to another journal. The new journal sent it back to the same referee.

The referee may well have felt I was engaged in journal shopping; in fact, in response to the report, I'd consulted with other people in the area, and gotten very positive feedback in support of the way the paper was written. I therefore thought it was reasonable to try again with a different journal, since there seemed to be genuine disagreement over the right approach.

The situation was handled quite well, and I'd recommend something like it to anyone on the other end: the editor was notified, and made the decision to ask for the report from the original referee, but also got a second opinion from a new referee.

In this case the story has a happy ending: the original referee didn't just resubmit a variant of the original report, but went above and beyond by explaining their main objection more clearly. The new explanation actually convinced me, where the old one hadn't, and I made the changes.

The moral being, the author may have actually taken the referee report seriously but honestly disagreed. That's not always the case, but in that situation you should consider the possibility---and that's why you definitely want to notify the editor, who should probably get a second opinion.

added: Just to be clear, I'm trying to address the general case of a referee in this situation, not just the particular instance that happened to F'x. There's a range of possible behavior by the paper author which could sound similar to what F'x is describing, and which some future referee reading this question might be experiencing, from the case where the author has resubmitted a paper unchanged to the case where the authors have incorporated many minor suggestions and given careful consideration before not taking some more important ones. F'x is describing a situation which sounds like it's closer to the first, I'm describing one which leans closer to the second.

A particular referee, in a particular case, may be able to judge which scenario is more likely, but it doesn't matter for the referee, because the correct answer is the same: notify the editor.

Answer 3

I see nothing wrong with authors choosing to submit to a new journal instead of making changes suggested by reviewers, although not fixing typos just seems silly. I also think that if authors choose to go this route, they deserve to get a new batch of reviewers. While I like to think of myself as reasonable and impartial, I am happy to have authors confirm this by submitting someplace else. When I receive requests to review a manuscript that I have already reviewed, I turn the review down with a note to the AE that I have already reviewed the manuscript for another journal. I do not to say what journal or anything about my recommendation.

If for some reason I agree to review a manuscript and later find out that I have previously reviewed it, I would immediately contact the AE and explain what has happened. I would offer to provide a revised review. I would acknowledge in the review that I was reviewer N for the previous journal.

Answer 4

I'll add here as an answer the course I did follow, so people can comment on it and help me see its pros and cons (obviously, I saw more pros than cons to it, as I did decide on it after some thought).

I went the last option mentioned in my question: I sent a review which consisted of my earlier review, with an added text clearly delimitated at the top explaining that I had already reviewed the paper for another journal (I didn't say which, as it seemed a breach of reviewer ethics). I also insisted that even uncontroversial changes hadn't been made, and I thought this shed bad light on the author's good faith participation in the peer-review process.

Finally, I watched later to see where the paper had been published: after being dropped from journal A to journal B (and maybe others), it ended up being published in a third, obscure journal with very few changes (but at least the typos were removed).

As a side note: given that I was not such a big name in that particular subfield at the time, and the two editors who picked me for review didn't know me personally, I believe I was twice listed by the authors as “potential reviewer” upon submission of their work. Which means, either they didn't really think it through the second time, or they naturally assumed that the review they had received wasn't my type. 😼

Answer 5

This situation has happened to me in both directions. As a reviewer, I always inform the editor first, and then only if they insist do I send them the earlier review. But I prefer to avoid it because otherwise it constitutes double jeopardy for the authors.

As an author, if I resubmit to a new journal, I expect to get a new set of opinions. There's no point in resubmitting if you're just going to get the identical comments. As to whether one should or should not revise a paper before resubmitting, that depends on many factors. Obviously factual errors or typos should be corrected. But I don't necessarily agree that one should go through a huge revision to address concerns raised by one set of reviewers, because a new set of reviewers may have a completely different set of issues, and maybe even object to some suggestions made by the first set of reviewers. Moreover, the second set, not knowing what issues were raised by the first set, won't know why certain things were included. For instance, if one reviewer asks me to add a paragraph favoring a particular interpretation (theirs of course) and I include this, but the paper is still rejected and I then send it to a new journal with a new reviewer, that person might completely disagree and reject the paper based on that interpretation which I only put in for the now-irrelevant reviewer in the first place!

Answer 6

Since you're being asked to review exactly the same object that you already reviewed, your task is simple: simply respond with exactly the same review. Your review is a function of the content. That function should produce the same value when applied to the same input. Just like when a browser is asked to load the same page twice, it can just fetch it from its cache (subject to expiry checks, which are clearly not applicable in this analogy).

Answer 7

Yes, resend your earlier review, just as verbatim as their MS. An explanatory note, no matter how diplomatically phrased, can be misconstrued / dismissed as you moaning and complaining, so I would not bother if I were you.