Read on Twitter
Many academics don't seem to know this: It's the editor's job to either reject or accept, or recommend revisions following a peer review report, not the reviewers'.
Reviewers give recommendations, but the final decision rests with the editor. A few non-obvious things follow...1/
Reviewers give recommendations, but the final decision rests with the editor. A few non-obvious things follow...1/
First, it is appropriate to recommend reject as an editor though reviewers are very positive. Two positive reports doesn't automatically means a paper has to be published. The editor should not outsource editorial responsibility to reviewers 2/
Second, it is possible to recommend revise and resubmit (perhaps, very rarely even accept, though I never encountered this as an editor or an author, and only once as a reviewer) when a reviewer recommends reject. 3/
Obviously, as an editor you need to exercise careful judgment when your decision is not in line with reviewer recommendations. But it's not uncommon to see one of the following (speaking from editorial experience now)... 4/
* A reviewer who is super-harsh or bases their verdict solely on disagreeing deeply with the premise, or who is too pessimistic about the possibility of satisfactory revisions (then it is OK to say R&R even though reviewer recommends reject) 5/
* A reviewer who is manifestly too clement and recommends accept though the paper has many problems (that an editor might spot). Then, alas, and to the frustration of the author, an editor needs to reject. A good desk reject process can save a lot of frustration! /end
