Later rounds

When the editors ask for a revision, the authors change their work and send it back as the next round. By default it returns to the same reviewers.

What you see

The submission stays on the same line in Reviews, marked with the new round. It opens with:

• your own earlier review,
• the authors’ reply to it,
• the changes they made, shown one by one.

What is filled in for you

Part	In a later round
Scores	Filled in from your last review, each marked with the round it came from.
Notes on scores	Filled in from your last review.
Confidence	Filled in from your last review.
Recommendation	Empty. Choose it again.
Comments to the authors	Empty. Write them for this round.

Change whatever the revision changes. What you leave stands.

How to review a revision

1. Read the reply first. For each point you raised, did the authors change the work or explain why not?
2. Check the changes against the reply.
3. Judge the answers, not only the changes. A good reason for not making a change is an acceptable answer.
4. Do not raise new concerns that you could have raised in the first round, unless the revision brought them in.
5. Say plainly whether your concerns are now met.

From round two the templates include ones written for revisions.

An earlier round, as it was

Your history on this paper lists each round you worked on. Opening a round shows the work as it was sent to you then, with its own title and text, and a note at the top says which round you are reading. A full paper that began as an abstract shows the abstract in round 1 and the full paper in the round that reviewed it.