As IEEE VIS Overall Papers Chairs, we’ve observed a troubling pattern that undermines the integrity of our peer review process: papers rejected from one venue being resubmitted to the next with minimal or no revisions. While we understand the frustration of rejection, this practice damages our community and wastes our most precious resource: the time and goodwill of our people.
Yes, there is such a thing as Reviewer Roulette. Sometimes individual reviewers significantly impact a paper’s fate, and sometimes excellent work gets unfairly rejected. However, attributing every rejection to a “grumpy Reviewer 2” represents a cynical dismissal of the peer review process. This mindset prevents authors from extracting value from critical feedback and improving their work. It’s the same mindset as the willful child who never accepts blame and thus never learns and grows.
When a paper gets rejected, the fault often lies at least partly with the authors. Even groundbreaking research can fail to communicate its contributions effectively. If reviewers misunderstand your work, that signals a communication failure that you need to address. While it can feel frustrating that your brilliant work is rejected because of a trivial concern, this is the nature of the game at the top tier of academia.
So before you dismiss that negative review out of hand, consider this: a colleague volunteered hours of their time to read your paper carefully and provide detailed feedback. They did this without compensation. And the words they wrote were intended for you alone, likely never to see the light of day. Dismissing these comments without consideration not only disrespects this selfless labor, but it squanders an opportunity for improvement.
Reviewing represents significant labor that keeps our conferences and journals running. When authors submit unfinished papers “just to get reviews,” they impose substantial costs on the community. It’s even worse when they resubmit work unchanged to a new venue because this means that prior reviews are then effectively wasted. Each submission triggers hours of work from multiple reviewers, area chairs, and program committees. Ignoring this labor isn’t sustainable.
We’ve previously discussed these concerns in our post The Cost of Submission, but the issue persists. As OPCs and APCs, we regularly encounter papers that appear virtually unchanged from previous submissions. Many reviewers have reported similar experiences, often recognizing papers they’ve reviewed before at other venues.
If you’re reviewing a paper that seems familiar, speak up. (Note that while IEEE allows this practice, it seems that the ACM does not. That’s a bad call by the ACM for all the reasons outlined here.) In our view, you’re uniquely positioned to assess whether authors have addressed previous feedback. Including this observation in your review is not only appropriate but actively helpful to the process. Tell your fellow reviewers and PC members if a paper appears unchanged from a previous submission—and if you want to avoid being confrontational, add it to the private section of the review form. You may even copy and paste your old review unchanged; if the authors did not invest any effort into revising their work, why should you invest effort in reviewing it anew?
For authors, we offer this guidance: at minimum, address the surface-level comments from your reviews. Fix the typos, clarify the confusing passages, and strengthen the weak arguments that reviewers identified. Better yet, engage seriously with substantive criticism. When reviewers question your methodology, challenge your assumptions, or identify gaps in your evaluation, give this feedback due consideration. Sometimes reviewers are wrong, but more often they’re highlighting genuine weaknesses that, once addressed, will strengthen your contribution.
The peer review system, despite its flaws, remains our best mechanism for maintaining research quality. It depends on mutual respect between authors and reviewers. Authors deserve thoughtful and constructive feedback. Reviewers deserve to see their efforts valued through meaningful revisions. We can create a virtuous cycle where careful reviews lead to better papers, which inspire more thoughtful reviewing. Or we can spiral into a system where cynical resubmissions breed resentful reviews, degrading the process for everyone. The choice is ours.