2

I have recently recieved the reponse from the editor of the submitted journal. At the beginning, the editor wrote "The manuscript requires revision and probably an additional review before a decision can be made on its suitability for publication." . I'd like to know "an additional review" means the editor will find another reviewer? Or just after recieving the revision, he won't make a decision himself but send the revision to the present reviewers? Thanks a lot.

4

The editor is probably referring to another round of review - more than likely sent to the same reviewers, though this statement does not explicitly say so. Essentially, based on the previous round of reviews it seems the paper need not be rejected outright but requires some major revisions such that reviewers need to evaluate whether those revisions alleviate their concerns.

If the editor meant that it was to be sent to a new reviewer they would have said "an additional reviewer" rather than additional review.

Of course, it's also possible that the editor messed up the English, though I think that is unlikely in this case; the situation sounds pretty clear because of the need for revisions. If a paper needs to go to another reviewer for an editor to make a decision that would usually happen before any revisions (this would normally happen if the previous reviewers disagree, or if the previous reviewers indicate in their review that there are parts of the paper they did not feel qualified to assess).

6
  • Thanks for you answer. Excactly as you say, there are 2 reviewers, one thought the work is interesting and worthy of publication, yet the other criticized the lack of novelty and it is not enough for publication. – Enze MA Jul 10 '17 at 17:32
  • In addition, the 2nd reviewer gave some comments, franchly according to which, the revision seems somehow infeasible, such as modifying the math model with additional physical quantity. Yet the editor asked me to adquately address the concern of Reviewer 2 about the novelty and highlight it via stronger arguments in the Introduction of the article. Does it mean it is acceptable for Editor that I do not make some structural modifications according to the Reviewer 2? – Enze MA Jul 10 '17 at 17:35
  • 2
    See related posts like academia.stackexchange.com/questions/27445/… and academia.stackexchange.com/questions/89419/… if you think the requests are not reasonable. Otherwise, the sentence you quoted in your OP suggests that the editor expects you to make revisions to appease reviewer 2, and will send those revisions back to both reviewers for their input. – Bryan Krause Jul 10 '17 at 18:19
  • I have found numbers of wise advices in the related posts, it is very helpful, thank you very much. – Enze MA Jul 10 '17 at 18:59
  • I read it as 2 reviews that didn't reach a definitive conclusion, and the editor was suggesting a 3rd review was necessary. In addition, if the outcome were positive, that would mean revision and presumably additional reviews. – Fred Douglis Jul 10 '17 at 19:17

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.