What happens when an unpublished review is rejected?

Jan 3, 2020, 8:08 PM

Too 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If I vote to reject an unpublished review, I typically write a few comments about why I rejected the review.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 Perhaps not, as I've never received any PMs complaining that I rejected an unpublished review.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 (4)

Jump to latest

shadowcat5 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It's impossible to know if a person rewrites a review and re submits it because the are no names attached to an unpublished review.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.

grand15115 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.

MackTruck5 years ago

^^^ Jackass

Electronman5 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Shadowcat--- you are correct about names not being attached to unpublished reviews.

However, I have seen some reviews that I originally rejected showing up a day or two later in an updated set of unpublished reviews. When I look at the new unpublished version, it is often expanded or improved (although I don't have access to the original submission to do a side by side comparison of improvements).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.