Teppo and Jerry discussed the issue of the multiple r&r. When thinking about the issue, I like to start off with “what is the best way to discover the truth?” An R&R suggests that the editor thinks the article is correct or presents an issues that deserves debate.

If you believe that point of view, then there is no point in having a 1RR rule. If the article presents an important finding, why should it be rejected just because it needs a little more work? That’s nonsensical. If the editor truly believes in the article, a rejection means that you are simply delaying (or even preventing) the publication of something that is true.

At the same time, rejection after revision is sensible if the revision reduces confidence in the main finding. However, if the editor thought it was a decent finding to start it, the paper’s argument should remain relatively constant after additional evidence or argumentation is introduced. Thus, rejection after revision should be relatively rare.

What I’m saying is that I favor a model similar to that used in some disciplines, like economics, where R&R means that the editor has confidence in article and that there is a high probability of acceptance, assuming that the results are robust. And if that means that some papers (and authors) suffer some drawn out revisions, I can live with that.

Adverts: From Black Power/Grad Skool Rulz