Not invited for second review round

Question

I was invited some time ago to review a paper, in which I recommended rejection. After a while, I saw this paper published in the same journal, but I wasn't invited to the second round of revisions (there was one, as the published version is significantly different from what I received).

Is this normal? This is the second time I have recommended rejection and the first time, I was invited to re-review the paper.

Answer 1

This depends on field but also on the discretion of the editors. Some editors will try in general to spread out reviewing if possible. Others will specifically not ask people to do a second round if they recommended rejection since then presumably no matter what changes they make that person would likely still recommend rejection. There is one big exception I know of this is in my own area, namely math, where if the person recommending rejection says explicitly in the referee report that they would possibly recommend acceptance if the paper was able to resolve a specific question. In contrast, it is much more common if someone recommends major revisions for it to be sent back to that person.

Answer 2

This isn't common, but can happen. Examples:

• Your review contains personal attacks
• Your review argues for X, but the authors persuaded the editor that ~X is correct
• The editor sent you another review in the interim and doesn't want to overload you (this is less likely given that your first recommendation was 'reject')
• The editor thinks inviting you to review the revision will offend you (because you have already recommended rejection and by sending for revision they are going against your recommendation)
• The other reviewer saw your review and gave reasons why your objections should be disregarded
• Specific to MDPI: this publisher has a policy that all reviewers must have a PhD, and they discovered afterwards that you don't have a PhD, so they are disregarding your review

Answer 3

In addition to Allure's answer, based on my experience:

Reasons within your control

• Your review was too light or lacked substance
• Your review contained too many clear errors
• Your review was overly positive or glowing without recognising strengths, in a way that is not helpful to the authors or editor
• Your review was unnecessarily onerous or critical without recognising weaknesses, in a way that is not helpful to the authors or editor
• You indicated that you would not be available for a follow-up review
• Your review incongruously recommended citations to your own research
• Your review presupposed or espoused a scientific philosophy from which the field has moved on (e.g. "quantitative research is not real", "qualitative research is not real")

Reasons outside of your control

• The invitation email bounced or was designated as spam
• The review management system designated your subnet or domain as unreliable
• The editor has discovered an actual or perceived conflict of interest
• The author signals an actual or perceived conflict of interest in your review comments
• The editor, unfortunately, is petty and has taken a dislike to you, your school or your institution
• The managing editor made a simple mistake