It has happened several times to me now.
I (sub)review a paper for a conference and for one reason or another the paper is rejected. The next conference deadline rolls around and I get a request to review the same paper. I have never turned down these requests until today, and even today it was a “soft” turn-down. I’ve experienced three characteristic situations:
- The first version has a bug. I recommended a reject. In every case that I can remember, the second version has the same bug, so I happily send the same review to the PC member, always being honest about reviewing this for a previous conference.
- I loved the first version and recommended an accept. I happily send the same review, perhaps with a little extra “sugar” in the hopes that it will be accepted this time, always being honest about reviewing this for a previous conference.
- I was luke warm about the first version. I check to see that the paper hasn’t changed. It hasn’t. Should I submit the same luke-warm review? I did this time, but was pretty strong about not really thinking it would be useful to the committee.
I’m starting to think that a second review by the same person for a different committee isn’t very useful. Except perhaps in the first case when a bug is a bug is a bug. (I had one situation where I reviewed an un-changing, incorrect paper three times only to see it one day be accepted to a conference – with the bug included – for which I was not a reviewer.)
So, my question is: what do you do in these situations? As a PC member, do you welcome “re”reviews? In all situations? Or just some?