Journal Editors and the Addition of New Comments in Later Rounds of Review: Balancing Perspectives and Ensuring Consistency

Allowing new comments in later rounds of review is a nuanced issue that can depend on several factors. Here are some considerations for journal editors:

Pros of Allowing New Comments

Fresh Perspective

A new reviewer can provide a different viewpoint that may highlight issues or strengths not previously considered, potentially improving the quality of the manuscript.

Relevance to Revisions

If the manuscript has undergone significant changes, new comments can address how those changes affect the overall argument, methodology, or results.

Fairness

If the original reviewer is not returning, it can be seen as equitable to allow a new reviewer the opportunity to express their thoughts without being bound by prior comments.

Cons of Allowing New Comments

Inconsistent Feedback

Introducing new comments from a different reviewer in later rounds can lead to inconsistencies in the feedback process, making it harder for authors to address all concerns comprehensively.

Potential for Confusion

Authors may become confused if new comments contradict earlier ones, complicating their understanding of what is expected for acceptance.

Increased Workload

It can lead to an extended review process if the new comments require substantial revisions, potentially delaying publication.

Recommendations for Editors

Clear Guidelines

Establish clear policies on how comments are managed across review rounds, including when and how new comments can be introduced.

Communication with Authors

Ensure that authors are informed about any new comments and the rationale behind them, helping them navigate the feedback effectively.

Encourage Cohesiveness

If allowing new comments, encourage new reviewers to consider previous feedback to maintain a level of continuity in the review process.

Limit Scope

Consider limiting new comments to specific aspects of the manuscript that have changed significantly rather than allowing a complete reevaluation.

In summary, while there are valid arguments on both sides, a balanced approach that considers the context of the manuscript, the extent of revisions, and the potential impact on the review process may be the most effective way forward.

Journal editors face a dilemma when deciding whether to allow new comments in later rounds of review. This article explores the pros and cons and provides practical recommendations for managing this process. By establishing clear guidelines, communicating effectively with authors, and maintaining consistency, editors can ensure a fair and efficient review process that ultimately benefits the publication and the readers.