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

R&R’s based on one report followed by a rejection by a different reviewer?

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

Is it normal/considered acceptable to get a revise-and-resubmit based on one referee report, and then get rejected based on a completely new report, with no sign of the original reviewer? I am kind of a compulsive manuscript status checker — bad habit, I know — and the thing went back “under review” within like 4 or 5 days after I submitted the revisions, so I’m somewhat skeptical there was a failed effort made to reconnect with the original reviewer, but suspect they immediately went for a new eye. The whole process took 14 months, pretty depressing…

What do readers think?

Posted in ,

11 responses to “R&R’s based on one report followed by a rejection by a different reviewer?”

  1. Anonymous

    Unfortunately it happens. I sympathise with OP. I’ve never been on the editor’s side though, so would love to hear why people do that.

    Reply
  2. anonymous

    It could be that the original reviewer refused to read any further versions. Many manuscript submission portals have a checkbox with that option *at the point* of submitting reviews.

    Reply
  3. Anonymous

    If you’re basing this inference entirely on how quickly its status changed to “under review” after your resubmission, that on its own is no grounds for thinking it went to a different reviewer. Original reviewers who are able to referee the resubmission would likely to be quick to re-accept the R&R invitation to review, especially if they are keen to see how you handled their comments/suggestions. Furthermore, it’s highly unlikely they could find a new and different reviewer that quickly. So to me mind, the only good evidence that it went to a different reviewer would be wildly different comments justifying rejection, or that their comments fail to engage with how you revised according to the first round of comments.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      OP here. Yes, my evidence that it went to a different reviewer was (i) wildly different comments that (ii) failed to engage with how I revised according to the first comments. The tone and terminology was completely different, and the report started from scratch in summarizing my paper yet again. It was obviously not the initial reviewer. Sorry not to make that clear. The point about the speed to ‘under review’ was that I am skeptical they tried to contact the initial reviewer.

      Reply
  4. Anonymous

    So, I have sometimes recommended R&R with minor revisions, and made it clear that I will not see another version of the paper (in those cases, I am either too busy, and/or do not think anything more is required than the editor’s own judgment). So, I could imagine that my response might lead to this situation described above.
    I referee a lot – in fact, right now there are THREE invitations to referee papers in my inbox.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      What prompts the R&R recommendation in the second case? If you believe that nothing more is required than the editor’s judgement, that strikes me as grounds for an “accept” recommendation. In fact, it seems to strike me as something like the definition of an “accept” recommendation. The editor always has their own discretion to reject after the recommendation. Apologies if I have misunderstood.

      Reply
  5. AG Tanyi

    Editors do have discretion. If this is what happened, it means that the editor agreed with the new reviewer’s judgment or at least did not disagree with it.

    Reply
  6. Michel

    It happens, yes. There’s nothing for it but to move on.

    Reply
  7. Anonymous

    Is there anything one can do to try to avoid this happening? I understand that reviewers are busy, but it really does suck to spend so much time responding to a reviewer’s (often idiosyncratic) feedback only for it to not ever be viewed by that person again. Many R&Rs become something of a bespoke rewrite for an audience of 1 or 2.

    Reply
  8. Anonymous

    Definitely happens. Once case from me: Reviewer 1 really didn’t like the piece. Reviewer 2 really did like the piece. Reviewer 1 told me to cut out X, Y and Z. Reviewer 2 told me to go into more detail on X, Y, and Z. I followed Reviewer 1 on item X, Reviewer 2 on item Y and sort of melded them where possible for Z, with an explanation for what I was going for to the editor. They sent it out to Reviewer 3 (they told me) who complained about exactly the items I changed. Probably would have accepted it, from what I could gather, had Reviewer 3 been part of the original group. Rejected. Sent the original version off to a different (better!) journal – immediate acceptance. Took FOREVER.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      Geez, looks frustrating. One thing that I had been guilty of when I was a new referee was that I didn’t notice the option for wanting to review revised versions. I must have glossed over default buttons. And I wondered why I never received a revised version.

      Reply

Leave a Reply to anonymousCancel reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

Continue reading