Are you trapped in the vicious circle of revisions? — R Voice

Are you trapped in the vicious circle of revisions?

Kakoli Majumder
Kakoli Majumder Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 203 admin
edited May 14 in Publication Support

Chanced upon this image and found it completely relatable! I think it also applies to multiple rounds of peer review. A researcher I knew had to go through 7 rounds of peer review and revisions before his paper was finally accepted, nearly two years after the first submission! Anyone else who feels trapped in endless rounds of revisions? I would love to hear about your experience with multiple revisions.

Source: PhD Comics

Comments

  • Shruti Turner
    Shruti Turner Member Posts: 342 ✭✭✭✭

    YES!! I have felt like this before. Mainly for journal submissions. Every reviewer wants something different, I had 3 reviewers comment on my first paper I submitted and then also the comments from the editor. Needless to say the paper was rejected. I used the feedback to improve my paper and submitted it elsewhere. Again I had revisions to make...some even contradicting the revisions I was advised to do previously! It felt like a never-ending list of changes, to fit in everything asked for with such a limited word count. It almost felt like the paper wasn't my own.

    I found that stepping back and starting the drafting process again really helped me. I was able to use the knowledge and feedback I'd gained over the review processes to draft something new which sounded like me. When it went through the review process again there was feedback and there were changes I needed to make but on a much smaller scale. I think with contact feedback and edits we can lose what we were really trying to say in the first place and a fresh start can be just what we need. Even though it can feel like such a waste of time, I think it can be valuable and save time in the log-run!

  • Kakoli Majumder
    Kakoli Majumder Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 203 admin

    You make an interesting observation there @Shruti Turner. I agree that accommodating the suggested revisions within the specified word count can be restrictive and frustrating. Beginning afresh while keeping in mind the suggestions of reviewers can actually make the task a lot smoother - though initially it may seem time consuming. Moreover, that way, the flow doesn't get affected. This was a great tip! Making a mental note to try this out next time. Thanks! :)

  • Raj sundaram
    Raj sundaram Member Posts: 322 ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 24

    @Shruti Turner and @Kakoli Majumder

    Hmm...The vicious cycles with supervisors is a completely different story. Can get to the level of abuse/harassment, without being always constructive.

    With journals - editors/reviewers - this USED to happen a lot more frequently. But things have (dare I say) gotten better. Because everything moves faster, time is money for everyone, especially on the publishing side. Everyone [editors, desk editors, reviewers, authors, proof readers...everyone] is on a deadline. And everything regarding submissions is digitized on an online platform. No longer do authors have to wait endlessly for comments from reviewers who forgot to review [handling editors keep a track and assign a different reviewer]. If there are endless corrections and revisions assigned from reviewers, it has become quite easy to appeal to the editor. Indeed, the editors themselves get in and stop the cycle because money and time has been invested into processing the article. In case of rejections, it has become really easy to transfer to a different journal of the same publisher. I am surprised I am saying this (🙄) - this seems to be the unintended positive consequence of the speed culture of the publishing process.