Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine (2018) 41:3–5 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-018-0615-1 EDITORIAL “Revise before review; Reject without review; Reject after review”: why manuscripts are rejected Martin Caon Published online: 9 January 2018 © Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine 2018 Often the peer review process progresses smoothly through to adjudicate a difference of opinion between a reviewer and the steps: A new manuscript is submitted; appropriate the authors (not an unknown occurrence) then the manu- reviewers are identified, invited and promptly accept; they script would be sent to additional reviewers, or an editorial provide a report that arrives on time recommending major board member accompanied by a note that makes it clear revisions; the authors thoughtfully revise their manuscript that an adjudication opinion is being requested. The authors to the satisfaction of the reviewers so that the revised manu- of a manuscript that is rejected before or after adjudication script may be accepted after some additional minor revision. are of course free to submit it elsewhere. The reviewer of However, sometimes the reviewers’ opinions will diverge, a manuscript that is published despite their review recom- with one recommending minor revision with the other rec- mendation is at liberty, and indeed encouraged,
Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine – Springer Journals
Published: Jan 9, 2018
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud