LAUSR

In the second editorial in this series, we’ll look at the problem of unreasonably laborious manuscript revision requests from the perspective of the reviewer the reviewer who is, sometimes, tempted to go a little “over the top”. If the manuscript that you, as a reviewer, are assessing has left you rather a lot of significant loose ends, you might well feel perfectly justified in pursuing them! But that kind of manuscript is just the kind that needs a careful eye: in practice it means returning a few times to the title and abstract. Do they suggest more than the contents of the paper are able to substantiate? Or have the authors for good measure gone the “extra mile”, so to speak, and significantly exceeded the scope of title and abstract? If they’ve done that on purpose, there should be signs in the manuscript that make it clear that they are introducing related concepts with due qualification hoping that reviewers will respect that qualification and not pick the loose ends into a massive hole in the central fabric of the piece! Reviewing a manuscript that appears interesting and significant is often hard, because a reviewer can easily become very “involved” in the story, and where it might be going. However, as a priority, reviewers must see the research for what it is, not for what it could be. You can certainly express your ideas, and give guidance,