The Philosophers' Cocoon

A safe and supportive forum for philosophers.

Owned & Moderated by Marcus Arvan (University of Tampa)

Contact: marvan@ut.edu

Blog mission & moderation policy

IMPORTANT NOTE on how to ensure anonymity in commenting
Job-Market Reporting Thread (2025-26)
Job-Market Discussion Thread (2025-26)

recent posts

about

Rejections when referees recommend R&R?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

How common it is for journal editors to reject a paper even if the referee reports recommend an R&R? My paper got rejected from a high-profile journal but the reports had notes in the lines of "when revising, author should do X" or "If I were to revise this paper…". Recent discussion here has made it clear that appealing a decision is nigh futile; I guess I'm asking to lick my wounds more effectively.

I know it stinks as an author (it's happened to me too), but my sense is that this fairly common, particularly at journals with low acceptance rates. As one reader put it in a follow-up comment:

Remember that the referees are only offering advice. You can certainly take their advice about how to revise your paper. But the editor must balance the advice of the two or three referees. And even two R&Rs do not always lead to an acceptance or even an invitation to submit a revised manuscript. Some of his is an artefact of the size of the journal – if they do not publish a lot of article, and have many submissions, many 2XR&Rs will be rejected.

It's also worth remembering here that editors often read papers themselves to arrive at a final verdict after referee reports are received. 

Do any other readers have any additional insights to share?

Posted in

12 responses to “Rejections when referees recommend R&R?”

  1. Elizabeth Harman

    The fact that a referee report gives advice about how to revise a paper isn’t much evidence that the recommendation from the referee was to give the paper a “Revise and Resubmit” verdict. It must be common for kind referees to offer advice on revision even when they recommend rejection.

    Reply
  2. anon journal editor

    I posted a comment about this accidentally before it had its own thread, the gist of it was this:
    –Unless I think a paper is totally hopeless or doesnt’ have anything worth mining in it (rare!), I almost always give authors suggestions for revisions when recommending rejection, and as Liz says above, this is very common!
    –Many journals that might only pass along one referee report might have still used two referees (one of whom recommended rejection), and it is very unlikely these days (unless the editor thought the paper was very promising or something) for an editor to issue an R&R verdict at a highly ranked journal if the reports recommend R&R and rejection respectively.
    –I hope that editors don’t just “often” read papers after (and before!!) reports come in. I am an editor and I think it is truly bad behavior to not do this! (Maybe if both referees recommend rejection and their reports are clearly good, you can simply reject, but in cases where referees are positive about a paper, recommend R&R, etc., I think it’s irresponsible to not go back and make your own judgment–I think this is very standard practice.) It’s the editor’s job to decide what to do with the paper, not the referee’s job.

    Reply
  3. Hermias

    Just be grateful to have received reviewer feedback, and keep on trucking. The only thing that I’d take from phrases along the lines of “when revising…” is that the reviewer (probably) thought that the project was worth continuing to work on – there are some papers that are SLAGIATT (seemed like a good idea at the time).

    Reply
  4. Humanati

    Referees often have the opportunity to include confidential comments to the editor in addition to comments to the author. In my experience as an associate editor, the two sets of comments don’t always align. For example, you can have a referee who gives the author helpful and constructive comments for improving the paper (which might be taken to suggest an RnR recommendation), and who also notes to the associate editor that (for instance) they’re not sure the paper is all that novel, or that well-argued, etc. even if it’s somewhat decent (which might suggest the referee is themselves uncertain about whether to recommend RnR or rejection, or that they lean towards rejection but can see a potential case for an RnR).

    Reply
  5. Spencer Paulson

    I regularly receive recommendations for how to revise a paper when it is rejected. Some of these have really been quite helpful and have resulted in the paper getting accepted at comparable journals. I suspect that in most of these cases, the referee recommended rejection. In some, I think they may have unenthusiastically recommended R&R. My sense is that good journals will rarely give R&R to a paper that has received anything less than strident support from all reviewers, just given the volume of submissions.

    Reply
  6. Michel

    Often, especially at top generalist journals, the editor is looking for two (or more) ‘positive’ verdicts in order to give an R&R or an acceptance. So I wouldn’t put too much stock in a rejection coupled with comments that signal an R&R. Think of it like this: Rejection = -1 point, R&R = 0 points, and Acceptance = 1 point. So:
    R + R = -2 (rejection)
    R + RR = -1 (rejection)
    R + A = 0 (rejection)
    RR + A = 1 (probably revise and resubmit)
    A + A = 2 (acceptance)
    That’s not always how it works, but I find it a helpful way of thinking about it.

    Reply
  7. Michel

    Whoops, I left out:
    RR + RR = 0 (rejection or R&R, depending on the venue)

    Reply
  8. Tim

    When I write my reviews, I always point to things that I believe that the author should take into consideration when revising, even when I recommend rejection. So don’t assume that the reviewer recommended an R&R simply because they provide recommendations for revisions.

    Reply
  9. Reviewer 1

    Also, sometimes people (me) are kind of negative on a paper but unsure of their judgment. So I’ll say something confidentially to the editor like “I am not exactly sure what I recommend here–perhaps an R&R if the other referee is positive, but a rejection if not” … I don’t know as a referee what the editor is going to do. I almost always write comments as if the default is revise. The alternatives –the paper is perfect, or the paper is irredeemably bad, unsalvageable, for this or any journal– are rare.

    Reply
  10. Referee

    As others have said, what the OP describes sounds consistent with one or even both referees recommending rejection. I always try to give the author some suggestions for revision, even if I’m recommending rejection. I only recommend R&R when I’m quite confident I would be comfortable recommending accept if all the concerns in my finite list were addressed, and that is really a pretty high bar.
    One thing I wanted to add: even when all referees recommend R&R, the editor may judge that all of their concerns taken together justify rejection, or are simply too hard for the author to address all together, perhaps because they point in opposing directions.

    Reply
  11. Circe

    Listen to Michel. Two R+R verdicts at a top journal counts for less than you seem to think it does/should.

    Reply
  12. A + A ≠ Acceptance

    I recently received two “Accept” verdicts from referees but an R&R from a very well-regarded (but not tippy top) generalist journal because the editor thought one of the referee’s quite substantial comments and suggestions were worth considering.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading