I haven't published much and am wondering how common it is for a manuscript to be sent out for review twice by the same journal. I submitted a manuscript to a journal a few months ago. It went out for review, two reviewers provided feedback/suggestions, my co-author and I addressed them all, and the manuscript went back to those two reviewers who provided another round of feedback. This second round of feedback was positive - reviewers noted that they felt we had adequately addressed their original comments, that the manuscript was much improved, and their second round of comments was mostly cosmetic. We addressed each comment in the second round of reviewer feedback and resubmitted (up to this point, everything seemed in line with my past experiences). However, I just checked the status of the manuscript and it now says "Reviewer invited," indicating it has gone out for an entirely new round of reviews. How common is this? Is it inappropriate to reach out to the editor of the journal for an explanation? I'd prefer that they just accept/reject at this point, rather than holding my paper hostage (hyperbolic I know).
Manuscript sent out for review twice
- Thread starter catmom92
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 469
- Reaction score
- 547
For what it's worth, I had this happen recently with a review paper that was originally in a very sorry state (synthesizing disparate literature, complex topic), and needed major revisions. After the second round the editor assured me that it would be accepted for publication pending reviewer satisfaction. I just got it back and will be submitting it for a fourth round of review in the next few weeks -- reviewers basically invited us to polish it up across the board now that major revisions were completed. I think this is a pretty rare circumstance, but I do feel that it's appropriate for this particular manuscript under the circumstances.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2003
- Messages
- 943
- Reaction score
- 155
This is very common, especially as you move up the ladder as far as journal quality. Some action editors will want to make sure that all reviewers have signed off. They also could have a specific concern or question about the manuscript, and they may pull in another reviewer to handle just that piece. For instance, I have been brought in on a review before th review the statistics where I was told I was welcome to comment on, or review, the rest but really they just wanted to know that the stats were sound. Because of this, I definitely wouldn't ask the editor for an explanation, just know that it is a normal part of the process for many journals, or they may be checking on some final things.
2 rounds is very common. 3-4 is atypical, but not necessarily cause for concern. I'd be worried if it went beyond that.
Good news is I do think editors feel some pressure beyond the first round. A journal that routinely rejects things after 2-3 rounds of revision is not a place that will continue getting submissions unless its Science or Nature. As long as the turnaround time is reasonable, I wouldn't let it bother me.
I was pissed at one place that sent it back out for re-review after it took them 5 months to get it back to us the first time.
Good news is I do think editors feel some pressure beyond the first round. A journal that routinely rejects things after 2-3 rounds of revision is not a place that will continue getting submissions unless its Science or Nature. As long as the turnaround time is reasonable, I wouldn't let it bother me.
I was pissed at one place that sent it back out for re-review after it took them 5 months to get it back to us the first time.
Thanks all! It helps to know that this isn't super unusual. I'm learning that my tendency to catastrophize really comes to forefront in the publishing process. My advisor also encouraged me to be patient and see how this round goes.
