ASA Connect

Dear ASA,

I'm seeking opinions on best practice in the following situation.  I was recently asked to review a manuscript and it turns out that I reviewed an earlier version of the ms about 18 months ago for a different journal.  Do you have any thoughts on whether I should
- decline to review it again;
- share my previous review with the editor of the new journal;
- use parts of my previous review in a new review, which might reveal to the author that he now has the same reviewer as before?

Are there other issues that require careful handling?

Dear ASA,

I'm seeking opinions on best practice in the following situation.  I was recently asked to review a manuscript and it turns out that I reviewed an earlier version of the ms about 18 months ago for a different journal.  Do you have any thoughts on whether I should
- decline to review it again;
- share my previous review with the editor of the new journal;
- use parts of my previous review in a new review, which might reveal to the author that he now has the same reviewer as before?

Are there other issues that require careful handling?

That happened to me once.  My original review was that the paper showed some promise but needed several changes.  When I got the same paper at another journal, none of my suggested changes were included.  I mentioned that in my review for the ae when I encouraged a straight rejection.  The authors, I wrote, showed little interest in improving theirr paper. My report to the authors was a version of what I sent originally without my detailed suggestions forchanges.  

Dear ASA,

I'm seeking opinions on best practice in the following situation.  I was recently asked to review a manuscript and it turns out that I reviewed an earlier version of the ms about 18 months ago for a different journal.  Do you have any thoughts on whether I should
- decline to review it again;
- share my previous review with the editor of the new journal;
- use parts of my previous review in a new review, which might reveal to the author that he now has the same reviewer as before?

Are there other issues that require careful handling?

Dear ASA,

I'm seeking opinions on best practice in the following situation.  I was recently asked to review a manuscript and it turns out that I reviewed an earlier version of the ms about 18 months ago for a different journal.  Do you have any thoughts on whether I should
- decline to review it again;
- share my previous review with the editor of the new journal;
- use parts of my previous review in a new review, which might reveal to the author that he now has the same reviewer as before?

Are there other issues that require careful handling?

Dear ASA,

I'm seeking opinions on best practice in the following situation.  I was recently asked to review a manuscript and it turns out that I reviewed an earlier version of the ms about 18 months ago for a different journal.  Do you have any thoughts on whether I should
- decline to review it again;
- share my previous review with the editor of the new journal;
- use parts of my previous review in a new review, which might reveal to the author that he now has the same reviewer as before?

Are there other issues that require careful handling?

Dear Michael,

    In my view, the answer to this depends on whether or not the paper has been improved based on your previous comments.

    If not, then I would explain the situation to the editor, and send along the previous review (I don't think you signed any copyright when you sent them before, so you own it, and can use it as you see fit).

    If so, I would update my previous review accordingly, and use that.

Dear ASA,

I'm seeking opinions on best practice in the following situation.  I was recently asked to review a manuscript and it turns out that I reviewed an earlier version of the ms about 18 months ago for a different journal.  Do you have any thoughts on whether I should
- decline to review it again;
- share my previous review with the editor of the new journal;
- use parts of my previous review in a new review, which might reveal to the author that he now has the same reviewer as before?

Are there other issues that require careful handling?

Dear ASA,

I'm seeking opinions on best practice in the following situation.  I was recently asked to review a manuscript and it turns out that I reviewed an earlier version of the ms about 18 months ago for a different journal.  Do you have any thoughts on whether I should
- decline to review it again;
- share my previous review with the editor of the new journal;
- use parts of my previous review in a new review, which might reveal to the author that he now has the same reviewer as before?

Are there other issues that require careful handling?

Hey Michael,

This has happened to me a few times where, unfortunately, it was a cynical publishing maneuver. The authors never improved the paper they just kept submitting elsewhere in an attempt to avoid hard edits. 

It's unfortunate because this part of the publication industry puts the heaviest burden on diligent reviewers. (Ex. As Chris Barker mentioned, checking with the previous journal's editor, documenting the situation, etc.) Compare the effort you'll put in versus the quick time that these authors have just submitting through a different online portal. 

As James Marron points out, the key issue is whether not it's exactly the same paper or if substantial improvements were made.

I've only seen the case where the authors were trying to avoid edits.

In the review section I used the tool where you can send separate messages to the authors (public) vs editor (private) to clarify the situation. That private section was also useful because the paper had several "biomarkers" of made-up results that I didn't want to flag to the authors incase they repeated the behaviour. In the public section I kept it shorter than my previous review which was detailed.

Dear ASA,

I'm seeking opinions on best practice in the following situation.  I was recently asked to review a manuscript and it turns out that I reviewed an earlier version of the ms about 18 months ago for a different journal.  Do you have any thoughts on whether I should
- decline to review it again;
- share my previous review with the editor of the new journal;
- use parts of my previous review in a new review, which might reveal to the author that he now has the same reviewer as before?

Are there other issues that require careful handling?

I looked into this some years ago when it was pretty obvious we got the same reviewer when submitting a rejected paper to a new journal.  Until then, I always thought that new submissions were entitled to independent review (new reviewers).  However, when I looked at some policies, I recall finding guidance inconsistent with my position (unfortunately I don't remember what/where those policies were).  

I can see a situation where an author fundamentally disagrees with a reviewer.  In  principle, I think the AE (possibly in consultation with other editors) should make a determination about who is right.  In my experience, however, some AEs do not provide their independent assessment when there is disagreement between and author and reviewer, and instead default to a policy that is effectively "the author must please the reviewer."  If I were an author who scientifically objected to the changes a reviewer wanted and the AE wouldn't adjudicate, I might choose to take my paper elsewhere without changes..  

There are many excellent points in this thread.  On the whole, I still lean towards thinking that new submissions to new journal are entitled to independent reviews.  However, I think "internal" transfer to sister/partner journals are a different situation.  This usually means that initial reviews of a paper indicate that it is scientifically sound, but perhaps not a great fit for the journal where it was submitted.

Hey Michael,

This has happened to me a few times where, unfortunately, it was a cynical publishing maneuver. The authors never improved the paper they just kept submitting elsewhere in an attempt to avoid hard edits. 

It's unfortunate because this part of the publication industry puts the heaviest burden on diligent reviewers. (Ex. As Chris Barker mentioned, checking with the previous journal's editor, documenting the situation, etc.) Compare the effort you'll put in versus the quick time that these authors have just submitting through a different online portal. 

As James Marron points out, the key issue is whether not it's exactly the same paper or if substantial improvements were made.

I've only seen the case where the authors were trying to avoid edits.

In the review section I used the tool where you can send separate messages to the authors (public) vs editor (private) to clarify the situation. That private section was also useful because the paper had several "biomarkers" of made-up results that I didn't want to flag to the authors incase they repeated the behaviour. In the public section I kept it shorter than my previous review which was detailed.

Dear ASA,

I'm seeking opinions on best practice in the following situation.  I was recently asked to review a manuscript and it turns out that I reviewed an earlier version of the ms about 18 months ago for a different journal.  Do you have any thoughts on whether I should
- decline to review it again;
- share my previous review with the editor of the new journal;
- use parts of my previous review in a new review, which might reveal to the author that he now has the same reviewer as before?

Are there other issues that require careful handling?

I looked into this some years ago when it was pretty obvious we got the same reviewer when submitting a rejected paper to a new journal.  Until then, I always thought that new submissions were entitled to independent review (new reviewers).  However, when I looked at some policies, I recall finding guidance inconsistent with my position (unfortunately I don't remember what/where those policies were).  

I can see a situation where an author fundamentally disagrees with a reviewer.  In  principle, I think the AE (possibly in consultation with other editors) should make a determination about who is right.  In my experience, however, some AEs do not provide their independent assessment when there is disagreement between and author and reviewer, and instead default to a policy that is effectively "the author must please the reviewer."  If I were an author who scientifically objected to the changes a reviewer wanted and the AE wouldn't adjudicate, I might choose to take my paper elsewhere without changes..  

There are many excellent points in this thread.  On the whole, I still lean towards thinking that new submissions to new journal are entitled to independent reviews.  However, I think "internal" transfer to sister/partner journals are a different situation.  This usually means that initial reviews of a paper indicate that it is scientifically sound, but perhaps not a great fit for the journal where it was submitted.

Hey Michael,

This has happened to me a few times where, unfortunately, it was a cynical publishing maneuver. The authors never improved the paper they just kept submitting elsewhere in an attempt to avoid hard edits. 

It's unfortunate because this part of the publication industry puts the heaviest burden on diligent reviewers. (Ex. As Chris Barker mentioned, checking with the previous journal's editor, documenting the situation, etc.) Compare the effort you'll put in versus the quick time that these authors have just submitting through a different online portal. 

As James Marron points out, the key issue is whether not it's exactly the same paper or if substantial improvements were made.

I've only seen the case where the authors were trying to avoid edits.

In the review section I used the tool where you can send separate messages to the authors (public) vs editor (private) to clarify the situation. That private section was also useful because the paper had several "biomarkers" of made-up results that I didn't want to flag to the authors incase they repeated the behaviour. In the public section I kept it shorter than my previous review which was detailed.

Dear ASA,

I'm seeking opinions on best practice in the following situation.  I was recently asked to review a manuscript and it turns out that I reviewed an earlier version of the ms about 18 months ago for a different journal.  Do you have any thoughts on whether I should
- decline to review it again;
- share my previous review with the editor of the new journal;
- use parts of my previous review in a new review, which might reveal to the author that he now has the same reviewer as before?

Are there other issues that require careful handling?

Michael -

I once submitted to a journal of high reputation, and received comments back from the editor where a referee made an easily disproven, patently false, show-stopping statement.  On the other hand, for an even more prestigious journal, as a referee I once reviewed something directly in my field that was so badly done that, in spite of generally being a very easy referee, I wrote so much about what was wrong with that manuscript, that my comments were long enough for another manuscript. One of the authors of that manuscript has generally done well, and is highly respected.

In the former case, the referee was blatantly wrong.  In the latter case the manuscript was surprisingly silly.  Usually, these extremes would hopefully not occur.  However, in most cases the referee's comments will be less than perfect and the manuscript will be less than perfect.  If you, as a referee have supplied comments which the author/authors thinks/think are not an improvement, it would generally be their right to send it somewhere else, and expect someone else to review it.  Do not delay them further, or frustrate yourself further.  Just suggest another referee is needed and only comment to the editor if you think something is so very wrong you cannot let it go.  Of course that adds to the problem of having enough qualified referees for each submitted manuscript, but hopefully this would not happen too often.  If there are not enough referees qualified in that area, you might explain the situation to the editor and make a case-by-case decision as to how to proceed. 

Please pardon previous attempts to respond here.  Apparently I now need to use incognito (a.k.a. inprivate) mode.    

Cheers 

I looked into this some years ago when it was pretty obvious we got the same reviewer when submitting a rejected paper to a new journal.  Until then, I always thought that new submissions were entitled to independent review (new reviewers).  However, when I looked at some policies, I recall finding guidance inconsistent with my position (unfortunately I don't remember what/where those policies were).  

I can see a situation where an author fundamentally disagrees with a reviewer.  In  principle, I think the AE (possibly in consultation with other editors) should make a determination about who is right.  In my experience, however, some AEs do not provide their independent assessment when there is disagreement between and author and reviewer, and instead default to a policy that is effectively "the author must please the reviewer."  If I were an author who scientifically objected to the changes a reviewer wanted and the AE wouldn't adjudicate, I might choose to take my paper elsewhere without changes..  

There are many excellent points in this thread.  On the whole, I still lean towards thinking that new submissions to new journal are entitled to independent reviews.  However, I think "internal" transfer to sister/partner journals are a different situation.  This usually means that initial reviews of a paper indicate that it is scientifically sound, but perhaps not a great fit for the journal where it was submitted.

Hey Michael,

This has happened to me a few times where, unfortunately, it was a cynical publishing maneuver. The authors never improved the paper they just kept submitting elsewhere in an attempt to avoid hard edits. 

It's unfortunate because this part of the publication industry puts the heaviest burden on diligent reviewers. (Ex. As Chris Barker mentioned, checking with the previous journal's editor, documenting the situation, etc.) Compare the effort you'll put in versus the quick time that these authors have just submitting through a different online portal. 

As James Marron points out, the key issue is whether not it's exactly the same paper or if substantial improvements were made.

I've only seen the case where the authors were trying to avoid edits.

In the review section I used the tool where you can send separate messages to the authors (public) vs editor (private) to clarify the situation. That private section was also useful because the paper had several "biomarkers" of made-up results that I didn't want to flag to the authors incase they repeated the behaviour. In the public section I kept it shorter than my previous review which was detailed.

Dear ASA,

I'm seeking opinions on best practice in the following situation.  I was recently asked to review a manuscript and it turns out that I reviewed an earlier version of the ms about 18 months ago for a different journal.  Do you have any thoughts on whether I should
- decline to review it again;
- share my previous review with the editor of the new journal;
- use parts of my previous review in a new review, which might reveal to the author that he now has the same reviewer as before?

Are there other issues that require careful handling?

Dear ASA,

I'm seeking opinions on best practice in the following situation.  I was recently asked to review a manuscript and it turns out that I reviewed an earlier version of the ms about 18 months ago for a different journal.  Do you have any thoughts on whether I should
- decline to review it again;
- share my previous review with the editor of the new journal;
- use parts of my previous review in a new review, which might reveal to the author that he now has the same reviewer as before?

Are there other issues that require careful handling?