In a recent post on what to do with a rejected paper (https://lnkd.in/e8r3jAUY)
I commented, "You may encounter the same reviewer at the next journal & they won't be pleased if nothing has changed!".
A senior person whom I respect urged me to be more explicit. They commented:
"This reviewer will have spent time & effort (that could have been devoted to their own research outputs) working with the ideas in your paper to see if / how they could develop into a publication. If you don't reflect on their comments & thoughts & develop the paper in response you are effectively saying that you don't value their input & effort & are (implicitly) better than them. "They won't be pleased."
I could not agree more.
Sometimes, within the limits of 3,000 characters, I don't fully elaborate on my thoughts.
So, why would a reviewer not be pleased?
First, failing to revise your paper compromises the peer review system.
The peer review system only works if authors & reviewers take seriously their obligation to respond to receive & give feedback.
When you simply reformat references (& some people don't even do that) & resubmit, you have broken the implied social contract in peer review.
Second, the reviewer is a volunteer.
They have taken time from their life - be it work, home, or further afield - to read your paper.
They have every right for you to show respect for their time & take some time to address their comments.
Third, the reviewer is an educated reader.
If the reviewer is not "feeling it," it is likely that the next reviewer is not going to feel it.
If they complain about your manipulation in an experiment, you have not explained it well.
So fix the concern now & spare another reviewer the pain of trying to figure out what you did at the next journal.
Fourth, the reviewer will likely be asked to look at your paper again.
Editors select experts, people you recommend, or people you cite to review.
That pool is actually quite small. So, that reviewer is likely to be asked to give your paper another look.
I've had reviewers send me comments within minutes, saying that they've seen the paper before, it did not change much, & attach their recently submitted feedback.
Upon inspection, if the comments remain on point, I've used them in review packages.
Finally, absent revision, your paper is not getting better.
The point of peer review is to do more than certify that you are correct; it is to help you develop your ideas.
If you ignore comments, even the most malicious ones, you've missed the point of peer review - you might as well self-publish to LinkedIn!
Mind you, that does not excuse lousy reviewing! I am encouraging you to be a better person.
The bottom line is that when you fail to update your work, you compromise peer review & miss a chance to improve your paper.
So be diligent. Do the work, fix the problems & then submit it elsewhere.
Comments