Let's say you have a paper got a revision opportunity from an A (not A+, but counted by IU, UConn, etc.) journal. Your hand-collected sample is from 1987 to 2006. The referees basically have no problems with the story and results. But one of the referees suggested almost nothing but asked you to extend the sample period to something like 2010. How would you deal with this request?
Longer sample period?
-
Let's say you have a paper got a revision opportunity from an A (not A+, but counted by IU, UConn, etc.) journal. Your hand-collected sample is from 1987 to 2006. The referees basically have no problems with the story and results. But one of the referees suggested almost nothing but asked you to extend the sample period to something like 2010. How would you deal with this request?
You do it and then you are done. Unless it is very hard. I have once recommended exactly that and the author came back with an explanation why it is too hard and expensive to do so but offered some extra data of other kind to appease me. Can't say I was pleased but I recommended to publish.
-
You must have really liked the paper. If I recommend one major change and that is it, and the author is too lazy to do that one thing, I would likely reject it in the second round.
You do it and then you are done. Unless it is very hard. I have once recommended exactly that and the author came back with an explanation why it is too hard and expensive to do so but offered some extra data of other kind to appease me. Can't say I was pleased but I recommended to publish.
-
I liked the paper OK, but I realized in hindsight that I was being a slight dick by asking them to buy more data and they were from an LRM and had no real research budget fr it. I wasn't expecting the results to change I just thought it would be more complete.
You must have really liked the paper. If I recommend one major change and that is it, and the author is too lazy to do that one thing, I would likely reject it in the second round.
You do it and then you are done. Unless it is very hard. I have once recommended exactly that and the author came back with an explanation why it is too hard and expensive to do so but offered some extra data of other kind to appease me. Can't say I was pleased but I recommended to publish.
-
You must have really liked the paper. If I recommend one major change and that is it, and the author is too lazy to do that one thing, I would likely reject it in the second round.
You do it and then you are done. Unless it is very hard. I have once recommended exactly that and the author came back with an explanation why it is too hard and expensive to do so but offered some extra data of other kind to appease me. Can't say I was pleased but I recommended to publish.
I just ask for another round if they don't do what I want.