When Professor X’s paper has been dinged at the Absolutely Prestigious Journal of Economic Theory (APJET), it is customary to send the paper (after further revision) to BPJET (Boderline Prestigious Journal of Economic Theory). On occasion, one of those who will be asked to handle the paper by BPJET will have reviewed the paper earlier for the APJET. Further, it is not uncommon for this person decline handling the paper on the grounds that the author is entitled to a fresh pair of eyes. Is Professor X so entitled?
Lets start with the referee. Is it appropriate to decline on these grounds? No, say I. The referee should certainly disclose they have reviewed the paper before. But, the editor or associate editor has tapped them precisely because s/he values their opinion. The fact that they have offered their opinion to others is irrelevant. Disclosure of the earlier review allows editor or ae to decide whether it is appropriate canvas more widely.
What happens if the jaded eyes belong to the associate editor or editor themselves? Here I am not so clear what the rules should be. Suggestions?
2 comments
August 5, 2009 at 11:39 am
pll
Though this does not answer the question you pose, I thought I should share a nice write up by Preston McAfee, “Edifying Editing” (http://www.mcafee.cc/Papers/PDF/EditorExperiences.pdf). Link found through a post by Pierre Azoulay in orgtheory.net (http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/an-insider-view-of-academic-journal-editing/).
August 17, 2009 at 1:30 pm
rvohra
Thank you for the pointer. In fact Preston does provide an asnwer: “ Many people write me saying that they have already refereed a manuscript for another journal and want to give the author a new chance. I see this response as wildly inefficient.”