Most journals during second revision try to send the articles to reviewers who had reviewed the article before. But, if in case one such reviewer responds with a message that he cannot review the article this time, usually a new reviewer is requested to review the article.

My question is will this new reviewer also get the reviewer comments from earlier reviewer along with the manuscript?

  • 2
    For the journals I'm familiar with, yes. Nov 19, 2017 at 13:51
  • 1
    Note that unless you are asking due to pure curiosity, you will probably get a more useful answer if you tell us why you want to know this.
    – Wrzlprmft
    Nov 19, 2017 at 18:37
  • 1
    Of the journals I've reviewed for, most, but not all share past reviews. However, the exact answer to your question depends upon journal specific policies and possibly even editor discretion. Nov 19, 2017 at 22:53
  • I agree with Richard Erickson. Bear in mind that the review process is simply the journal editor's tool to determine what should be published, what should be revised, and what should be rejected. It is no more than that. The journal will have a peer-review policy, and certain ethical standards that must be met, but beyond that there is probably no binding rule. If it suits the journal's purpose, and if it's fair on the authors and referees, it can be done.
    – mmmlllsss
    Nov 20, 2017 at 22:31

2 Answers 2


All publishers I reviewed a revision for so far did this, so I would expect this to be default. In general, the information in the previous reviews might prove useful without the editor being able to predict this (otherwise, they could review the paper themselves). Thus it would be unwise to withhold that information, unless there is a good reason for this (like a reviewer accidentally revealing confidential information).

Some specific examples where having the previous reviews is useful:

  • One purpose of reviewing a revision, if not the main one, is to evaluate whether the previous round of review was properly addressed and no new problems arose from the new material. A new reviewer may miss a problem the previous reviewers found, but they may be capable of telling whether it was properly addressed. (If all reviewers were perfect, why use more than one reviewer at all?)

  • Sometimes authors make weird changes in response to a review. It is much easier to properly evaluate these changes if you know what happened before. In particular, a reviewer can avoid or directly address the problem of making a suggestion that is in conflict with another reviewer’s suggestions.

Also note that often the authors’ response to a review contains the entire review as quotes anyway (and disentangling the two would be quite tedious for the journal).


For the manuscripts I've reviewed for the first time in a revision, I generally do not get to see the original reviews as submitted by the reviewers themselves. However, I do get to see the response submitted by the authors, which normally includes a point-by-point response to the original reviews, and thus essentially provides the same information.

You must log in to answer this question.

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