When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Please login to comment
1 Comment
Most Voted
NewestOldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
author01(@author01)
23/10/2024 4:20 PM
#123
I was invited to review a research paper during its second round of revisions, which I accepted. The paper had received a ‘revise and resubmit’ (R&R) decision from all reviewers across two rounds. However, during the third round, it was assigned to yet a new reviewer who recommended rejection, providing only a brief, three-sentence comment. The feedback suggested that the reviewer lacked understanding of the paper’s content and was unfamiliar with its methodology. Unfortunately, the editor decided to reject the paper based on this review, citing journal policy that all reviewers must approve the paper for acceptance. In my view, a good editor should be able to distinguish between high-quality and poor-quality reviews and make decisions accordingly not just mechanically and blindly follow the reviewer recommendation.
I was invited to review a research paper during its second round of revisions, which I accepted. The paper had received a ‘revise and resubmit’ (R&R) decision from all reviewers across two rounds. However, during the third round, it was assigned to yet a new reviewer who recommended rejection, providing only a brief, three-sentence comment. The feedback suggested that the reviewer lacked understanding of the paper’s content and was unfamiliar with its methodology. Unfortunately, the editor decided to reject the paper based on this review, citing journal policy that all reviewers must approve the paper for acceptance. In my view, a good editor should be able to distinguish between high-quality and poor-quality reviews and make decisions accordingly not just mechanically and blindly follow the reviewer recommendation.