Moving a Paper on to Round Two of Revisions

If you have asked for changes to be made to a paper after a first round of reviews, there will come a time when authors make these revisions and either send them directly to you as an attachment (1.), or they upload them through the system to replace their original submission (2.).

It is important that authors do not submit their revised versions by entering a brand new submission – this simply clogs the OJS up and defeats the purpose of having a system where we can keep track of a paper and its revisions using one reference number. If this happens, contact Sarah Hussell for help (shussell@equinoxpub.com) or download the new submission to your desktop, archive the latest submission authors have made and then follow the instructions (1.) below.



  1. Sending a revised paper to Round Two that has been sent to you as an attachment to an email

Some authors prefer to send their revision to you directly so they know you have definitely received it. I prefer this method, and I tend to advise that editors ask authors to do this when editors send their initial editorial decision letter to the author after the first round of reviews. (Alternatively, editors can ask authors to send revised papers to me and I can upload them, though it is preferable for an editor to learn how to do this alone by carrying out the following instructions).

To upload the revised paper, select the title of the paper you want to upload from the list of the papers currently in review, and ensure you are on the ‘in review’ tab. You can tell this from the list of reviewers who will be listed there (in the example below, ‘Janet Joyce’ is Reviewer B):

 

You can see that the editor had made the decision of “Revisions Required”. In order to be able to send the revised paper (which you are yet to upload) to Round Two, you MUST change this decision to “Resubmit for Review” and click the “Record Decision” button. The screen will refresh to look like this:

 

You can see that the new decision has been recorded (underlined in red) and a ‘resubmit’ button has appeared, along with a box in which you can upload the revised document.

To upload the revised version, then, click on “Browse” and select the revised paper from wherever you saved it, then click “Upload”.

You will see the screen refresh to look like this:

 

The revised paper is listed as “Editor Version”. Select it by clicking on the white round checkbox and then click “Resubmit”*. The paper will have then been pushed to Round Two.





*If the “resubmit” button is faded, the OJS thinks that you need to alert the author of your ‘new decision’ (even though your decision hasn’t actually changed). To do this, click the little green envelope next to “Notify Author” and then “Skip” the automated email that pops up. You will then be able to use the Resubmit button. (This isn’t always a necessary step).





  1. Sending a revised paper to Round Two that has been uploaded to the author’s original submission

Authors who have uploaded their revised paper through the system should notify you of this in an email – either an automated one which they can send after they have uploaded their revised paper, or a personal one which they can send outside of the system. If you do not receive an email from the author, you simply cannot know that they have resubmitted a paper without going into the system to look. It is the author’s responsibility to send you an alert, not the OJS’s.

When the revised paper is submitted, it appears as an “author version” on the ‘in review’ tab (see the screenshot below). You can tell it is in the review tab because the reviewers who agreed to review the paper in Round One will be listed on the screen (in the example below, Helena Moniz was Reviewer C).

 



You can see from this screen shot that the editor’s decision for this paper was “Revisions Required”, but in order to push this new revised version through to Round Two, you need to ALWAYS change this decision to “Resubmit for Review” once you have the revised paper (unless, of course, the decision you had given in the first place was ‘resubmit for review’). Make sure that you click “Record Decision” to finalise this:

 

When you have clicked “Record Decision”, you can see that the OJS makes a note of the new decision that has been made, and a button allowing you to “Resubmit” has appeared.

In order to push the revised paper to Round Two*, simply select the “Author Version” (click on the circular check box) and then hit “resubmit”**. If there are more than one “author versions”, it is likely that the revised paper will be the one which is dated most recently. If you are ever in doubt, ask the author to send you the revised paper as an attachment instead, and upload it as instructed in step (1.)



*Please note that the OJS can record as many ‘Rounds’ of reviews as needed. You just need to use these same steps to push a revised version to the next round, be it the second, third or fourth round.



**If the “resubmit” button is faded, the OJS thinks that you need to alert the author of your ‘new decision’ (even though your decision hasn’t actually changed). To do this, click the little green envelope next to “Notify Author” and then “Skip” the automated email that pops up. You will then be able to use the Resubmit button. (This isn’t always a necessary step).





What to do once in Round Two (or Three, or Four…)

When you have finished steps (1.) or (2.), your refreshed screen will look a bit like this:

 

You can see that the two reviewers who agreed to undertake the review in Round One have been assigned automatically by the system to Round Two. Although they are assigned, they are not actually requested as reviewers yet.

If you want to request them as a reviewer again, you need to click on the green envelope and send them an email (just as you would in Round One – see the red square in the shot above).

If you do not want to request them again, you need to “CLEAR REVIEWER” (see the underlined bit in the shot above).

Alternatively you could request a brand new reviewer by clicking “SELECT REVIEWER” and choosing a new reviewer in exactly the same way as you would in Round One of reviews, though most editors should not be inviting new reviewers at this stage since the author has made their revisions in line with what the reviewers from Round One have requested.

If you were happy with all the changes made (or very unhappy), you can clear both reviewers and instead make an editorial decision to accept (or reject) the paper.



Have more questions? Submit a request

0 Comments

Please sign in to leave a comment.
Powered by Zendesk