What happens when an unpublished review is rejected?
ElectronmanToo much of a good thing is never enough
If I vote to reject an unpublished review, I typically write a few comments about why I rejected the review. If the review has potential, I'll offer a few suggestions about how to improve the review along with encouragement to resubmit an improve review.
I suspect (hope) that these comments go back to the OP. I don't know if the reviewers names are included in the rejection notice? Perhaps not, as I've never received any PMs complaining that I rejected an unpublished review.
I wonder how many writers of rejected reviews use the suggestions to improve their review and resubmit it and get it published?
Comments
last commentIt's impossible to know if a person rewrites a review and re submits it because the are no names attached to an unpublished review. Not sure about the rest of it.
Log in to vote
I have received critical PMs from authors of reviews I've voted to reject that were not published. But it's kind of like arguing with umps or referees: it might feel good to blow off the steam but we still have the final word.
Log in to vote
^^^ Jackass
Log in to vote
Shadowcat--- you are correct about names not being attached to unpublished reviews.
However, I have seen some reviews that I originally rejected showing up a day or two later in an updated set of unpublished reviews. When I look at the new unpublished version, it is often expanded or improved (although I don't have access to the original submission to do a side by side comparison of improvements).
If the above impressions are correct, that is the way the review process should work-- the writers of an rejected review have the opportunity to improve and resubmit their review. Hope this is the way the system is actually working.
Log in to vote