Timeline for Proper way to deal with papers you've already refereed.
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 6, 2011 at 16:12 | comment | added | Andreas Blass | @roy smith: Even rejections that the referee regards as "based on actual counterexamples" may be problematic. In at least one case, a referee claimed to have an actual counterexample to a theorem in one of my papers. The counterexample was wrong, but a letter explaining that to the editor did no good. (The paper was published in a different journal.) | |
| Feb 22, 2011 at 2:27 | comment | added | David E Speyer | Besides mathematical and stylistic reasons, papers also get rejected because of unimportance. I once sent a paper to a very good journal and got two referee reports. One said the paper was very good, the other said that everything was correct but the results were not important, the editors decided to reject it. I sent it out again unchanged to a comparable journal and it was accepted. In this circumstance, I see nothing wrong with doing so -- I wasn't going to prove better theorems at that point, and one of the referees thought it was good enough. | |
| Feb 21, 2011 at 20:53 | comment | added | roy smith | In my experience this problem arises when an author has a paper rejected without opportunity of rebuttal. Perhaps when a paper is rejected for mathematical errors concerning a result which would be deserving of publication if correct, the author, if he disagrees, might be given a chance to demonstrate that there is in fact no error. If he has a chance to defend his position, but without success, it might reduce repeated submission of the same flaws. If the referee has rejected it based on actual counterexamples, he should have no reservations about rejecting it unchanged again. | |
| Feb 21, 2011 at 20:07 | comment | added | Jim Humphreys | @no name: By the way, "stylistics mistakes" here is a stylistic mistake ;-) I agree that such things (in moderation) shouldn't count toward rejection, but should if possible be corrected to improve readability of a paper. Those of us who grew up with English have to appreciate the difficulty others have in writing for journals that publish primarily in English. | |
| Feb 21, 2011 at 20:02 | comment | added | Chris Godsil | If the author has resubmitted the paper without significant change, I would send the editor my original report with a note explaining what has happened. The editor can then choose to use your report, or commission a new one if s/he feels that would be fairer. Note that you are not rejecting the paper in any case - the editor decides whether to reject or accept on the basis of all available information. | |
| Feb 21, 2011 at 19:54 | comment | added | no name | They were mathematical mistakes. I wouldn't reject a paper for stylistics mistakes (well, only in extreme cases). | |
| Feb 21, 2011 at 19:51 | comment | added | Felipe Voloch | You didn't specify if your objections were mathematical mistakes or stylistic. In the first case, I agree with you. The second is not so clear. | |
| Feb 21, 2011 at 19:51 | comment | added | Matthew Daws | Well, I've been on both ends of this I guess, but I would tend to strongly agree with this sentiment. The exception would be when a referee gives a comment like "This paper is boring"-- this is a subjective comment, and in such a situation, it does seem ethically correct to hand over to another referee. (And to be honest that you are giving a subjective comment!) | |
| Feb 21, 2011 at 19:22 | history | answered | no name | CC BY-SA 2.5 |