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 after positive reviews for a 2nd revise-and-resubmit?

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

How common is it for a paper to be rejected after R&R after a positive second review from one reviewer and suggestions about structural and stylistic changes (but nothing substantial about the argument) from the other? I thought a second round of revisions would be more common in this case (or at lease a desk reject earlier if the editor did not think the paper was going to have a chance at publication). The other reason I am asking is also in light of my reviewing work – I would not appreciate my structural and stylistic suggestions to be used to reject a paper whose main argument I judged to be valuable. Is it better not to mention it altogether in an environment where many journals are aiming for ever higher rejection rates?

I empathize with the OP: it’s happened to me and it stinks. I know that some journals have policies that permit only 2 rounds of review before a final decision is made, but I don’t know if that applies to the OP’s case. As for whether stylistic and structural changes should be suggested by reviewers, I guess it’s sort of hard to say without knowing the details of the case–but I’m curious what other readers think about the general issue.

Any helpful thoughts or experiences from readers?

Posted in ,

4 responses to “Rejections after positive reviews for a 2nd revise-and-resubmit?”

  1. AestheticsAnon

    I once had two mostly positive reviews for an R&R, addressed the suggestions/issues they laid out, and resubmitted. My reviewers gave it the go-ahead, but the editor stepped in and said it was a no-go. Got the piece published elsewhere, but it was a discouraging experience—especially because I didn’t get any direct or comprehensive feedback from the editor, and so couldn’t address their concerns head-on.

    Reply
  2. Anonymous

    I think it is an easy reason for rejection if the (area/associate) editor chooses to do so. If you like the paper, don’t. Got one of those, and the comments from the editor was something like “oh we like your paper, but we don’t want to go through another round of revision. hope the comments help lol.”

    Reply
  3. Anonymous

    I heard that Free and Equal has a policy of only one round of “major revision” (or rather: only one round of major revision based on the first reviewer’s comments, such that, if the paper subsequently goes to the second reviewer, the only possible verdicts are minor revision or reject), though I’m not 100% sure. Ergo may have similar policies.

    I guess it speeds up process and cleans up backlog from the journal’s persective, but certainly a different story from the author’s!

    Reply
  4. Anonymous

    Early in my career I had a paper rejected after a round of revisions. This was in the days when you posted hard copies of manuscripts into journals (and editors posted them out to referees). This process was long and slow and their was no Editorial Manager to tell you where your paper was in the process. And if you were on the job market holding short-term positions, as I was, your manuscript would sometimes have to follow you around, being mailed from one university to another until it caught up with you. In this case, the editors of this good solid general journal changed during the back and forth. Well, given the referee reports were positive, I thought this was terribly unjust. So I contacted the editor and protested. On further consideration the editor accepted the paper and it was published. It has gone on to be cited 250 times (says Google Scholar). I am glad I pushed back. (I am not recommending that you or anyone protest ever rejection of a revised manuscript, but this is food for thought)

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

Continue reading