Reviewing research papers after the first round
Hello,
I recently graduated with a PhD in Machine Learning, and I’ve started receiving a growing number of review requests in my area of expertise. So far, the first review rounds have generally gone smoothly for me.
However, I’m unsure how to handle situations where a revised manuscript comes back without meaningfully addressing my concerns. In some cases, I recommended rejection because I believed the paper had fundamental methodological issues, poor writing, and weak contributions, yet the editor opted for a major revision instead. Then, in subsequent rounds, the authors either avoid the core issues or try to argue around them without making substantial changes.
Right now, I’m reviewing a paper that is in its fourth review round, and the authors still have not addressed a major concern I raised in the very first review. At this point, I honestly feel like my time is being wasted.
How do experienced reviewers usually handle these situations? Do you keep writing detailed reviews every round, or is it acceptable to simply point out that previous concerns remain unaddressed? And if a journal repeatedly ignores your recommendations, is that a reason to stop reviewing for them altogether?
Disclaimer: I used LLMs to proofread my post, but I am human!