Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

8
  • 5
    The note to the editor saying that you've already seen this paper in the review process should happen before agreeing to do the review. Commented Jan 14, 2025 at 15:53
  • 19
    @ScottSeidman: In my mind, it is not necessary. As an editor, it would not affect my decision on assigning a refereeing job (besides being happy that somebody will not spend eternity "refereeing" a paper only to decline the job in the end or stopping communications altogether). Commented Jan 14, 2025 at 16:00
  • 3
    @ScottSeidman The editor is free to ignore the review for whatever reason or weight it more or less. In other words, there's no "forever hold your peace" in review, like a regulated study. Commented Jan 14, 2025 at 21:55
  • 4
    I'd argue you should start the author comments by saying that you previously reviewed the paper. Then you directly reference your previous points and discuss how they were or were not addressed. That gives direct feedback to the editor on the quality of the paper. It's much more useful than "I read it again and it's fine." Commented Jan 14, 2025 at 22:00
  • 8
    @ScottSeidman: As an editor (and I have served as a managing editor for three journals) I would not care one way or another. Commented Jan 14, 2025 at 23:01