chocomaro
New member
Posts: 22
|
 |
« on: January 17, 2012, 10:26:29 PM » |
|
Hi, I am a pressured tenure-track faculty member at R1 university who is dying for more publications.
I submitted a second revision a few months ago and found that all the required reviews were complete.
As it was not a major revision and the second, I was very hopeful that it will be accepted this time.
However, the editor contacted me and said he/she got two reviews back but sent it to another reviewer for his/her opinion. For the first revision, the first reviewer wanted it to be accepted as it was, and the second reviewer wanted us to make a few changes, which was not a big deal. We addressed all of them pretty thoroughly.
I can tell that the editor is still not entirely happy about my second revision but why would he/she send it for another review? I am so perplexed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
msparticularity
|
|
« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2012, 11:49:57 PM » |
|
My own experience with this has been that sometimes the additional review can add a great deal of clarity. My first "big" article (in a really good journal) had a similar trajectory to yours, although in my case I got three moderately positive reviews originally, and they were split after the first revision, with one entirely positive, one rather violently opposed to publishing me, and the third kind of neutral. The editor then solicited an additional reviewer, who came in with some insights that were tremendously helpful--both to the editor in figuring out how to clearly direct me in the final revision, and to me as I was working on it.
My best guess is that your two reviewers have split in a way for which the editor does not feel willing and/or qualified to cast the deciding vote, so s/he has asked for additional feedback from someone trustworthy.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Once admit that the sole verifiable or fruitful object of knowledge is the particular set of changes that generate the object of study...and no intelligible question can be asked about what, by assumption, lies outside." John Dewey
"Be particular." Jill Conner Browne
|
|
|
|
tee_bee
|
|
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2012, 12:56:17 AM » |
|
My best guess is that your two reviewers have split in a way for which the editor does not feel willing and/or qualified to cast the deciding vote, so s/he has asked for additional feedback from someone trustworthy.
Exactly--I edit a journal where we usually use two reviewers, because the field is small and we overwork some reviewers. But I find myself having to break ties. If I don't know the area particularly well, I do ask for a third review. This may very well be happening here. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
systeme_d_
|
|
« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2012, 01:03:01 AM » |
|
If you haven't seen this yet, now is most definitely the time, OP. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Systeme_D is right. <rah rah RESEARCH!> |
|
|
|
sagit
|
|
« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2012, 02:24:38 PM » |
|
If you haven't seen this yet, now is most definitely the time, OP. Oh, yes, that really was perfect for this thread. OP - I agree with the above comments. One of the reviewers likely raised an issue that was significant enough to request another opinion. It is possible that this was someone who did not review the first version of your paper. Or, something about your revision caused a new issue to arise. This can happen in the review process. However, OP, can you clarify - was the article accepted with revisions? It wasn't clear to me in the original post if that was the case or not. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 18, 2012, 02:25:47 PM by sagit »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tee_bee
|
|
« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2012, 04:13:37 PM » |
|
If you haven't seen this yet, now is most definitely the time, OP. I LOLd and spit up diet coke when the subtitles translated "Mein Fuehrer" as "Professor." There should be a warning. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
chocomaro
New member
Posts: 22
|
|
« Reply #6 on: January 18, 2012, 05:26:51 PM » |
|
Thanks everyone for your great comments!
It is a second revision but R & R.
Yes, I really need to learn hundreds of different things that can happen during the review process.
It is a great learning experience for me! Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mickeymantle
|
|
« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2012, 08:11:26 PM » |
|
OP, sometimes an editor can run into a situation similar to one that recently happened to me. One reviewer thought my article was acceptable, but provided little, if any, criticism. The second reviewer rejected the article and gave extensive criticisms. What is an editor to do in this case? A split decision gives him or her no clear choice. So a third reviewer is necessary so that when a final decision (accept, reject, or r-and-r) is made by the editor, he or she can rely on solid grounds and not brown off the writer if the last two options are selected.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
