What happens when an unpublished review is rejected?

Too much of a good thing is never enough

Friday, January 3, 2020 8:08 PM

If I vote to reject an unpublished review, I typically write a few comments about why I rejected the review.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 Perhaps not, as I've never received any PMs complaining that I rejected an unpublished review.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?

4 comments

shadowcat
•
5 years ago
It's impossible to know if a person rewrites a review and re submits it because the are no names attached to an unpublished review.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.
grand1511
•
5 years ago
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.
MackTruck
•
5 years ago
^^^ Jackass
Electronman
•
5 years ago
Shadowcat--- you are correct about names not being attached to unpublished reviews. However, I have seen some reviews that I originally rejected showing up a day or two later in an updated set of unpublished reviews. When I look at the new unpublished version, it is often expanded or improved (although I don't have access to the original submission to do a side by side comparison of improvements).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.

You must be a member to leave a comment.Join Now

Got something to say?

Start your own discussion