Academic journal editor here. It’s our job to read, interpret & then write to the article author advising them about how to revise. (One past editor taught us at the beginning of our term, “Reviews are not votes.”) https://twitter.com/openacademics/status/1304926977124716544

Ultimately, the final decision at most journals are the editors’. We do not override or disregard reviews, but we use them, and our editorial team (3 editors & 2-4 assistants) to decide.

Once in a while, you’re stumped. That’s what you have an editorial board for! We ask for each MS to be reviewed by at least one board member of the 3; sometimes you go to a board member who is squarely in that field for their advice.

When I’m editing, I recall playing Wff N’ Proof (Academic Games) in middle school. I am honestly always looking for a path toward publication for any MS we take through the process. I hate it when it doesn’t work - no room from reviewers & my gut can’t override the advice.

If I’m managing editor on a MS, I am rooting for it to win. The worst thing is to take the article through review, and *especially* re-review, and the reviews don’t give me a path to justify vetoing. Because at RTE, the anon reviewers get forwarded the final decision letter.

Rejects happen when it’s not just Reviewer 2. If Reviewer 1, the fair and measured one, says “no, and here’s why,” and Reviewer 3, the cheerleader, says “I’m not sure this works, and here’s why,” I just hope the author gets it.

The real challenge is that Reviewer 2 comes in with both barrels firing. For an R&R, you need to help the author read Reviewer 1’s helpful developmental feedback, and bask in Reviewer 3’s praise. Because they will focus on Reviewer 2 at the exclusion of all else.

A good editor contextualizes the second review and puts it into its place - as one of 3 reviewers. Because Reviewer 2 isn’t editing the journal; we are.

I get snarky second reviewers of my own work. Have always gotten them... what I do is 1) focus on the editorial letter; 2) respond to con crit in reviews, point by point. Reviewer 2 is a colleague with an opinion - focus on how the editor’s letter tells you to revise the MS.

The question and the comments seem to imply that editors are sending reviews back and leaving authors on their own with insufficient direction. That only happened to me once; I never revised the article and it’s still in a digital folder.

The only time we send reviews back without a long letter is if we have rejected the MS. At that point our opinion doesn’t matter. But especially for R&Rs, as an editor, it is your job and responsibility to read across reviews and give concrete advice to authors about next steps.