How to review revised manuscripts: pecularitites and specific feature

Most manuscripts received by the journal for review are revised and edited by the authors at least once, taking into account the comments of reviewers and editors.

Are there any peculiarities to review revised manuscripts?

Minor changes are usually evaluated directly by the editor.

If major changes were required, the editor usually returns the manuscript to the original reviewers. In rare cases, the editor may seek comments from a new reviewer, but the editor should explain why a new review is required. It is important that new reviewers respect the previous comments and the efforts made by the author to revise the article.

Ideally, any substantive changes should be requested in the original review, and the subsequent review should seek to ensure that changes have been made, not to raise additional issues.

Thus, the review of an edited manuscript takes much less time and may only include verification that the requested changes have been implemented. However, sometimes additional issues may arise or changes may not have been adequately addressed, in which case a second round of review of the article may be required. Nevertheless, the purpose of the review remains the same: to ensure that the article meets the requirements for publication.

Usually the editor provides both the original decision letter and the author's response to it. This allows the reviewer to see what changes were requested, including by another reviewer, and how the author responded.

Some journals require authors to indicate changes directly in the revised manuscript, which greatly simplifies this task.