A philosopher writes:
I think that journals should no longer give revise-and-resubmits. All decisions should be either accept or reject. A journal can certainly send an acceptance that reads "we are pleased to accept your paper, and ask that you will consider the attached referees' comments as you prepare the final version for publication." Likewise, I think that rejections should always include at least *some* comments from the referees. The reasons are twofold: (1) it will speed up refereeing and decision making. Referees and editors never have to look at revised papers, thus freeing up time to read new submissions. (2) authors will not waste their time trying to satisfy referees who gave an R&R, only to have the journal eventually reject the paper.
This last just happened to me-- a very prominent journal gave me an R&R, writing " we find the paper a promising one, and we hope that you will be willing to revise it... we would not be inviting resubmission this strongly if we were not optimistic about finding a subsequent version acceptable for publication." They enclosed two reader's reports with minor suggestions. The journal then sent my revised paper to two entirely new referees, one of whom didn't like it. After two rounds of revisions--bloating my paper with attempts to satisfy the one critical
ref-- the piece was rejected. I have heard many similar stories from others. No one wins in this scenario, and I can't see that it contributes either to the pursuit of truth or to the efficient functioning of our profession. R&Rs ought to be abolished.
Thoughts from readers? All comments must include a valid e-mail address, which will not appear. References to specific journals must include a full name in the signature line.
