Timeline for answer to Should I review for the second time a paper that I already reviewed and recommended for acceptance in another journal? by Moishe Kohan
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 16, 2025 at 10:14 | comment | added | Especially Lime | @ScottSeidman as an editor, I would prefer to see this since it gives me the extra information that the original review was detailed, and so I will weight this reviewer's opinion more highly. | |
| Jan 14, 2025 at 23:01 | comment | added | Moishe Kohan | @ScottSeidman: As an editor (and I have served as a managing editor for three journals) I would not care one way or another. | |
| Jan 14, 2025 at 22:04 | comment | added | Scott Seidman | @user71659 -- I'd love to see an editor's confirmation that this is what they'd like to see in this situation. | |
| Jan 14, 2025 at 22:00 | comment | added | user71659 | 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." | |
| Jan 14, 2025 at 21:55 | comment | added | user71659 | @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. | |
| Jan 14, 2025 at 19:24 | comment | added | Scott Seidman | It feels not right to add the note later. I think if a potential reviewer has anything to say about a previous review, it's before the review starts, or forever hold your peace. | |
| Jan 14, 2025 at 16:00 | comment | added | Moishe Kohan | @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). | |
| Jan 14, 2025 at 15:53 | comment | added | Scott Seidman | 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. | |
| Jan 14, 2025 at 14:53 | history | edited | Moishe Kohan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 57 characters in body
|
| Jan 14, 2025 at 5:48 | history | answered | Moishe Kohan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |