[editorial page] [refereeing cycle] Refine the "required actions": remove insistence on 3 invited referees for resubmissions

As far as I know, 2 referee reports are sufficient during review. During the second round of review I have commonly encountered a situation, where I would invite the referees from the first round and they would immediately accept. At the same time editorial view of the submission would insist that I need to invite at least 3 referees.

I therefore propose to consider the number of referees that accepted the invitation in determining whether there are pending actions.

I believe this is unfixed since a NeedRefereesAction is always created with BaseCycle defining the minimum_number_of_referees to be 3, regardless of Journal standard or the number of referees previously invited.

Can minimum_number_of_referees be determined depending on whether the submission is new or is a resubmission?

added typebug 🪲 label

added User Experience 🤩 label

added impactmedium prioritylow labels

added prioritymedium label and removed prioritylow label

changed iteration to Two-week Sprint Feb 23, 2025 - Mar 8, 2025

assigned to @gkatsikas

Can this issue be closed? @gkatsikas

This is an opportunity to highlight if the number of referees is below the required number for the target journal. If it is lower, please keep showing the prompt to invite more referees.

changed title from Refine the "required actions" to [editorial page] [refereeing cycle] Refine the "required actions": remove insistence on 3 invited referees for resubmissions

added workflowin-progress label

marked this issue as related to #353 (closed)

I am somewhat confused with the goals of this issue and their relation to #353 (closed).

• What exactly do we want the "NeedsReferees" action to represent? Is it that every cycle should have referees regardless of whether they are needed to publish?
• When should it appear? Is it when invited referees are not enough as per to the minimum per cycle? or maybe as to the minimum per thread to publish?
• Do all (non-EIC-cancelled) invitations count towards the minimum? What about declining to referee such that the minimum nr of reports won't be reached without new invitations? Shouldn't that also raise a "NeedsReferees" action?
• What is the difference between number of referees to be invited per cycle vs. the minimal number of reports to recommend publication? Are these not the same?

To give a brief answer to those questions: EiCs are prompted to invite a certain number of referees. This number is purposefully larger than the minimum number of reports necessary for publication, as we expect some invitations will be rejected. However, it is true that once the minimum number of reports is secured or at least promised by the referees, we no longer need to prompt the EiC to invite more referees.

I propose that we keep the required action "NeedsReferees" if fewer than 3 outstanding (i.e., not yet replied) or accepted invitations exist for a normal refereeing cycle. As you point out, cancelled invitations and rejected invitations should not count, as they will not lead to a report.

added Feedback Needed 🗣️ workflowblocked labels and removed workflowin-progress label

changed iteration to Two-week Sprint Mar 9, 2025 - Mar 22, 2025

removed iteration Two-week Sprint Feb 23, 2025 - Mar 8, 2025

added workflowin-progress label and removed workflowblocked label

removed Feedback Needed 🗣️ label

closed with commit c0f424a9