What Does It Mean When Your Paper Goes to an Additional Reviewer?
By Dr. Aanya Mehta
Research Writer & Professional Business Communicator
You have submitted your research paper, waited through peer review, perhaps responded to revisions, and then noticed something unexpected in the journal’s submission system: your paper has gone to an additional reviewer.
Naturally, the first question is: what does it mean when your paper goes to an additional reviewer?
In most cases, it means the editor wants another expert opinion before making a decision. This is not automatically a negative sign, and it is not an indication that your manuscript will be rejected. Editors may invite another reviewer because the existing reviews disagree, because one reviewer is unavailable, because a particular methodological or subject-area issue requires specialist expertise, or simply because the journal wants an adequate number of independent assessments.
Peer review is an editorial decision-support process rather than a mechanical vote. Editors select appropriate reviewers, consider their reports, evaluate the manuscript themselves, and ultimately determine the next step. Springer Nature describes peer review as a stage in which editors select appropriate experts and then make a decision after the review process. Wiley likewise explains that handling editors may send additional invitations until the journal has obtained the number of reviewers it needs.
For an author, however, the appearance of an additional reviewer can feel significant—particularly if two reports have already been submitted or the manuscript has already undergone revision.
The key is not to interpret the status in isolation.
An additional reviewer can be appointed at several stages of the editorial process, and the reason may be completely procedural or may reflect an editorial need for another scientific perspective. Understanding those possibilities can help you respond rationally, avoid unnecessary correspondence with the journal, and prepare effectively for whatever decision follows.
This guide explains what an additional reviewer usually means, why editors seek additional opinions, whether it is a good or bad sign, what happens when reviewers disagree, how long another review may take, and what you should do while waiting.
Quick Answer: What Does It Mean When Your Paper Goes to an Additional Reviewer?
When a paper goes to an additional reviewer, the editor has decided that another independent expert assessment would be useful before making or confirming an editorial decision.
Possible reasons include:
- One original reviewer declined or became unavailable.
- The journal has not yet obtained its required number of completed reports.
- Existing reviewers have substantially different opinions.
- The editor wants specialist expertise on a particular method, dataset, theory, or technical issue.
- A revised manuscript requires further evaluation.
- One review was insufficiently detailed or useful for decision-making.
- The editor wants greater confidence before reaching a difficult decision.
Wiley states that editors may send additional reviewer invitations as needed until the required number of reviewers has been secured; the number is often two but varies between journals. Elsevier similarly notes that editors may need to identify and invite multiple reviewers before enough experts agree to assess a submission.
Therefore, “additional reviewer” should not be translated into either “acceptance is coming” or “rejection is coming.”
The most appropriate action for the author is usually to wait for the editorial decision unless the journal has significantly exceeded its normal review timeline or has requested something from you.
Key Takeaways
- An additional reviewer usually means the editor wants another expert assessment, not that a rejection has already been decided.
- Journals frequently invite more reviewers than eventually complete reviews because invitees may decline or fail to respond.
- An extra reviewer may be needed when existing reports disagree substantially.
- Revised papers may sometimes be sent to a new reviewer instead of, or in addition to, the original reviewers.
- A specialist reviewer may be invited to evaluate a particular methodology, analysis, theory, or technical issue.
- Reviewer recommendations inform editorial decisions, but the editor—not a simple reviewer vote—makes the publication decision.
- Authors generally do not need to take action unless contacted by the journal or the review period becomes unusually long.
What This Page Covers
This guide explains:
- What an additional reviewer means in journal peer review
- Common reasons editors seek another reviewer
- Whether an additional reviewer is a positive or negative signal
- What happens when reviewers disagree
- Why revised manuscripts may be reviewed again
- How another reviewer may affect publication timelines
- What authors should and should not do while waiting
Table of Contents
- What Does “Additional Reviewer” Mean?
- How the Peer-Review Process Normally Works
- Why Would an Editor Invite an Additional Reviewer?
- Does an Additional Reviewer Mean the First Reviews Were Negative?
- What Happens When Reviewers Disagree?
- Can an Additional Reviewer Be Invited After Revision?
- Is an Additional Reviewer a Good Sign or a Bad Sign?
- How Long Can an Additional Review Take?
- What Should You Do While Waiting?
- Common Mistakes Authors Make
- Practical Peer-Review Scenarios
- How to Prepare for the Next Decision
- How Contentxprtz Can Support Authors
- Summary
- Frequently Asked Questions
- About the Author
- Conclusion
Methodology and Academic Sources
The guidance in this article is based on established scholarly publishing practices and information provided by major academic publishers and journal organizations, including Springer Nature, Wiley, Elsevier, and PLOS.
Peer-review procedures vary between journals. The number of reviewers, terminology used in manuscript-tracking systems, authority of associate editors, re-review policies, and expected decision timelines are not universal.
Authors should therefore treat general explanations as guidance and check the specific journal’s author instructions, editorial policies, and correspondence from the handling editor when interpreting a manuscript status.
What Does “Additional Reviewer” Mean?
An additional reviewer is another subject expert invited by the journal editor to evaluate a manuscript beyond the reviewer or reviewers already involved in the process.
The important word is additional. It does not necessarily mean that two completed reports already exist.
For example, an editorial system may show that several reviewers have been invited even though only one has accepted. Wiley explains that handling editors send additional invitations as required until they obtain the number of reviewers needed for the journal’s process.
A typical situation could look like this:
- The editor invites Reviewer A and Reviewer B.
- Reviewer A accepts.
- Reviewer B declines.
- The editor invites Reviewer C.
- Reviewer C does not respond.
- The editor invites Reviewer D.
- Reviewer D accepts.
To the author, the increasing number of reviewer invitations may look dramatic.
Editorially, however, the journal may simply be trying to secure two completed reviews.
Another situation is very different:
- Reviewer A recommends major revision.
- Reviewer B recommends rejection.
- The editor believes both arguments have merit.
- Reviewer C is asked to provide another independent assessment.
Here, the additional reviewer has been deliberately added because the editor wants another perspective.
The same manuscript status can therefore represent quite different editorial circumstances.
How the Peer-Review Process Normally Works
Although journal procedures differ, peer review generally involves several broad stages.
1. Initial editorial checks
The journal checks whether the submission satisfies basic requirements. Depending on the publisher and journal, this may include authorship information, ethical declarations, competing interests, formatting, scope, plagiarism-related checks, and required documentation.
Springer Nature, for example, describes an initial quality-check stage before editor assignment and peer review.
2. Editor assessment
An editor evaluates whether the manuscript should proceed to external peer review.
A manuscript may be rejected at this stage if it is outside the journal’s scope or unsuitable for further consideration.
3. Reviewer selection and invitation
The editor identifies researchers with appropriate subject expertise and invites them to review.
Not every invited researcher accepts. Potential reviewers may:
- Be unavailable
- Have a conflict of interest
- Feel the paper falls outside their expertise
- Have too many existing review commitments
- Decline without providing a detailed reason
This is why journals frequently need to invite more people than the number of reviews ultimately required.
4. Review
Reviewers assess the manuscript and provide comments for the authors and/or editor.
They may examine matters such as:
- Research question
- Originality or contribution
- Study design
- Methodology
- Data analysis
- Interpretation
- Reporting quality
- Literature engagement
- Limitations
- Ethical considerations
- Presentation and clarity
5. Editorial decision
The editor considers the manuscript and the reviewers’ reports.
Reviewer recommendations are important, but they are recommendations rather than automatic decisions. Springer Nature notes that editors weigh reviewer reports, authors’ responses where relevant, and their own expertise in deciding how to proceed.
Possible outcomes include:
- Accept
- Minor revision
- Major revision
- Reject and resubmit, depending on journal policy
- Reject
If the evidence available to the editor is insufficient or conflicting, another reviewer may be recruited before that decision is made.
Why Would an Editor Invite an Additional Reviewer?
There is no single reason. Several explanations are common.
1. A reviewer declined the invitation
This is one of the most routine explanations.
Editors often invite replacement reviewers when their original choices cannot review the manuscript.
If your submission system says another reviewer has been invited, it may have nothing whatsoever to do with the content or perceived quality of your research.
2. The journal has not obtained enough reviews
A journal may seek two or more completed assessments before making certain decisions.
Wiley notes that editors continue sending invitations as necessary until the required reviewer number is secured, often two, although policies vary.
Therefore:
Four reviewers invited does not necessarily mean four people will review your manuscript.
There may ultimately be only two completed reports.
3. The original reviewers disagree
This is the explanation authors often worry about most.
Suppose:
- Reviewer 1 recommends minor revision.
- Reviewer 2 recommends rejection.
The editor now faces conflicting expert opinions.
The editor can make a decision based on those reports, but another option is to seek a third perspective.
Research on peer review has documented that reviewer recommendations do not always agree, reinforcing why editors—not reviewer vote counts alone—must interpret reports and make editorial judgments.
An additional review in this context may help the editor evaluate:
- Whether a criticism is fundamental
- Whether methodological concerns are valid
- Whether revisions could realistically solve the problems
- Whether one reviewer has interpreted the work unusually
- Whether the manuscript meets the journal’s scientific threshold
4. Specialist expertise is required
Sometimes a manuscript contains several technically distinct components.
For example, a health-science paper might combine:
- Clinical interpretation
- Machine-learning modelling
- Statistical analysis
- Health-economic implications
A reviewer may be qualified to assess the clinical question but express uncertainty about the statistical methodology.
The editor could then approach someone with specialist statistical expertise.
In such a case, an additional reviewer does not necessarily indicate a problem. It may indicate that the journal is trying to conduct a more appropriate and rigorous assessment.
5. One review is not sufficiently informative
Editors need reviewer reports that help them reach defensible decisions.
A review may occasionally be:
- Extremely short
- Vague
- Focused on peripheral issues
- Internally inconsistent
- Unsupported by clear reasoning
- Outside the reviewer’s primary expertise
Editors may then decide that another assessment would provide a stronger basis for the decision.
6. The manuscript was substantially revised
A substantially revised manuscript can require another round of peer review.
Wiley explains that manuscripts requiring significant revision are often returned to original reviewers, although a new reviewer may sometimes be invited.
This can happen if an original reviewer is unavailable or if the revisions introduce issues requiring different expertise.
7. The editor wants greater confidence in a difficult decision
Some manuscripts sit near an editorial threshold.
The paper may be promising but have substantial methodological concerns. Alternatively, reviewers may agree that the research is valuable but disagree about whether its limitations can be corrected.
An editor may seek another report rather than rushing an uncertain decision.
Does an Additional Reviewer Mean the First Reviews Were Negative?
No. You generally cannot conclude that the earlier reviews were negative simply because another reviewer was invited.
Several situations are possible.
| Situation | Why Another Reviewer May Be Needed | What It Means for the Author |
|---|---|---|
| Reviewer declined | Replacement needed | Primarily procedural |
| Reviewer never responded | Editor needs another invitee | Primarily procedural |
| Only one report received | More independent evaluation needed | Usually neutral |
| Reviews disagree | Editor wants another perspective | Outcome uncertain |
| Technical expertise missing | Specialist assessment needed | Neutral; issue-specific |
| Major revision submitted | Re-review required | Normal in many workflows |
| Original reviewer unavailable after revision | New reviewer replaces them | Usually procedural |
| Existing report insufficient | Better evidence needed for decision | Outcome uncertain |
The practical lesson is important:
Do not attempt to reverse-engineer the likely editorial decision from reviewer-count changes alone.
Submission systems show workflow events. They rarely reveal the full reasoning behind those events.
What Happens When Reviewers Disagree?
When reviewers disagree, the editor evaluates the reasoning behind their reports, not merely their recommended decisions.
Imagine these two reports:
Reviewer 1:
“Accept after minor language changes.”
Reviewer 2:
“The statistical model is inappropriate for the research design and the main conclusion is therefore unsupported.”
A simple vote would produce one positive and one negative reviewer.
But these recommendations are not equally informative unless the editor examines the arguments.
If Reviewer 2 has identified a valid methodological problem, that concern may carry significant weight even if Reviewer 1 was broadly positive.
Alternatively, Reviewer 2 may have misunderstood an aspect of the research, and the editor may determine that the criticism does not justify rejection.
Springer Nature describes editorial decision-making as a process in which editors assess reviewers’ reports and use their own expertise to determine how the manuscript should proceed.
An additional reviewer can therefore act as another source of expert evidence when the editor needs greater clarity.
Three reviewers do not necessarily equal majority voting
Authors sometimes imagine:
- Two reviewers say accept
- One says reject
- Therefore acceptance wins 2–1
That is not how editorial decision-making should be understood.
A single reviewer may identify a serious ethical, analytical, methodological, or validity concern that outweighs multiple general recommendations for publication.
Conversely, one unusually critical review does not automatically force rejection if the editor judges the criticism unconvincing.
The editor evaluates the substance of the reports.
Can an Additional Reviewer Be Invited After Revision?
Yes. A revised manuscript can be sent to the original reviewers, a subset of them, an additional reviewer, or—in some workflows—be assessed by the editor without further external review.
The precise approach depends on the journal and the nature of the revision.
Wiley’s guidance on revised manuscripts states that significant revisions will generally return to the original reviewers, but it also acknowledges that a new reviewer may sometimes be invited.
There are several possible reasons.
The original reviewer is unavailable
Several weeks or months may have passed since the initial review.
An original reviewer may no longer be able to participate.
The revision added substantial new material
Suppose the authors have added:
- A new dataset
- A new experiment
- A different statistical analysis
- A new theoretical framework
- Extensive additional results
The editor might decide that specialist evaluation of the new material is appropriate.
The first review identified a question requiring specialist assessment
A reviewer might say:
The authors have addressed the conceptual concerns, but I recommend specialist statistical review of the revised model.
The editor may then seek that expertise.
The editor wants an independent view of whether major concerns were resolved
This is particularly plausible when the first round raised serious but potentially correctable problems.
Is an Additional Reviewer a Good Sign or a Bad Sign?
It is best treated as a neutral procedural or editorial development unless the journal has provided more information.
There are reasons authors may view it positively.
The manuscript is still under active consideration. The editor has chosen to continue evaluation rather than simply ending the process immediately.
However, this should not be interpreted as evidence of eventual acceptance.
There are also circumstances in which another reviewer is assessing substantial concerns.
Therefore, neither of these statements is reliable:
“A third reviewer means my paper will be rejected.”
“A third reviewer means the editor wants to accept my paper.”
A more defensible interpretation is:
“The editor believes another review is useful before the next decision.”
That conclusion fits both routine reviewer replacement and more complex cases involving disagreement or specialist assessment.
Practical Example 1: One Reviewer Declines
A researcher submits a quantitative management study.
The journal initially invites two reviewers.
Reviewer A accepts immediately. Reviewer B does not respond.
Several days later, Reviewer C is invited. Reviewer C declines because of workload.
Reviewer D is then invited and accepts.
The author sees several reviewer-related status changes and worries that the editor keeps adding reviewers because something is wrong with the manuscript.
In reality, the editor has simply been trying to secure the journal’s desired number of completed reviews.
What this example teaches
Reviewer invitations and completed reviews are different things.
An increasing reviewer count may reflect recruitment difficulties rather than manuscript quality.
Practical Example 2: Two Reviewers Disagree
A public-health manuscript receives two reports.
Reviewer 1 considers the study well designed and recommends revision.
Reviewer 2 raises concerns about sampling and recommends rejection.
The handling editor believes the methodological criticism deserves further assessment but is not certain it invalidates the research.
A third reviewer with expertise in epidemiological methods is invited.
What this example teaches
The third review is neither inherently positive nor negative.
It gives the editor another informed perspective on the issue that may determine the final outcome.
The author cannot reliably predict the decision simply from the appointment of Reviewer 3.
Practical Example 3: New Reviewer After Major Revision
A doctoral researcher receives a major-revision decision.
The authors conduct additional analysis, restructure parts of the discussion, and submit a detailed response to reviewers.
One original reviewer agrees to re-review. The second is unavailable.
The editor appoints another researcher to examine the revised manuscript.
This is consistent with established peer-review practice: Wiley notes that a new reviewer may sometimes be recruited when a revised manuscript is reassessed.
What this example teaches
A new reviewer after revision is not necessarily evidence that the original response failed.
It may simply be the practical solution when an earlier reviewer cannot return.
How Long Can an Additional Review Take?
There is no universal timetable for an additional review.
The duration depends on:
- How quickly the editor identifies a suitable reviewer
- Whether invited reviewers accept
- The review deadline established by the journal
- The complexity of the manuscript
- Reviewer workload
- Whether reminders are needed
- Whether another reviewer must be invited after a decline
- The journal’s editorial workflow
Wiley explicitly notes that peer-review timelines vary by journal and advises authors to consult the relevant journal for process-specific timing.
Consequently, an additional reviewer may extend the process.
The delay may occur before reviewing even begins because finding a willing expert can take time.
Why the status may remain unchanged
A manuscript-tracking system may display the same status for days or weeks even though several things are happening behind the scenes.
For example:
- An invitation was sent.
- The reviewer has not answered.
- The editor sent another invitation.
- A reviewer accepted but has not submitted the report.
- A completed report is awaiting another report.
- The editor is assessing the submitted reviews.
Not all journals expose these individual events to authors.
What Should You Do When Your Paper Goes to an Additional Reviewer?
In most cases, you do not need to do anything immediately.
1. Avoid interpreting every tracking-system change
Editorial-status terminology can create unnecessary anxiety.
A status reflects workflow, not necessarily a hidden decision.
2. Review the journal’s stated timelines
Check:
- Author guidelines
- Submission-system information
- Journal FAQs
- Previous editorial emails
This gives you a better basis for deciding whether the review is genuinely delayed.
3. Use the waiting period productively
You cannot normally alter the manuscript while formal review is underway, but you can prepare.
Consider:
- Reviewing your manuscript critically
- Checking your analysis files
- Confirming references
- Reviewing supplementary material
- Organizing source data and documentation
- Preparing for possible clarification requests
- Thinking about limitations reviewers may identify
Do not submit an unsolicited revised manuscript unless the editor requests one.
4. Wait before emailing the editor
A new reviewer invitation alone is usually not a reason to contact the journal.
An inquiry becomes more reasonable if:
- The journal’s normal stated review period has been substantially exceeded
- The tracking system has remained unchanged for an unusually long period
- The editor previously gave you a timeframe that has passed
- You have an important time-sensitive matter that genuinely requires editorial attention
Keep any inquiry concise and professional.
5. Prepare yourself for more than one possible outcome
An additional review can lead to:
- Minor revision
- Major revision
- Acceptance
- Rejection
- Occasionally another round of review
Avoid becoming emotionally committed to a particular interpretation of the status.
What Not to Do While Waiting
Do not assume rejection
There is insufficient information to make that conclusion.
Do not assume acceptance
Continued peer review does not guarantee a favorable decision.
Do not repeatedly email the editorial office
Frequent inquiries are unlikely to accelerate an active review and may unnecessarily burden journal staff.
Do not contact reviewers
Peer review generally requires communication through the journal’s editorial process. Authors should not independently attempt to identify or approach anonymous reviewers.
Do not make major unpublished changes and assume you can substitute them into the paper
Unless the editor permits a manuscript update, wait for the formal decision.
Do not treat reviewer recommendations as votes
Editors evaluate the significance and validity of comments rather than simply counting recommendations.
Common Mistakes Authors Make When Interpreting Additional Reviewers
Mistake 1: “Another reviewer means the editor dislikes my paper.”
Better interpretation: The editor requires more information, another reviewer, or another area of expertise.
Mistake 2: “Three reviewers means the journal received three completed reviews.”
Better interpretation: Reviewer invitations, acceptances, and completed reports are separate events.
Mistake 3: “The third reviewer is the deciding vote.”
Better interpretation: The editor considers the scientific arguments in all relevant reports and makes the editorial decision.
Mistake 4: “If the paper was revised, only the original reviewers can evaluate it.”
Better interpretation: New reviewers may sometimes become involved in reviewing revised manuscripts.
Mistake 5: “A long review means rejection is coming.”
Better interpretation: Delays can occur because of reviewer availability, workload, editorial scheduling, technical complexity, or difficulty recruiting suitable experts.
Mistake 6: “I should email the editor as soon as another reviewer appears.”
Better interpretation: Unless something is unusually delayed or the journal requests your input, waiting is normally appropriate.
Additional Reviewer vs Re-Reviewer vs Replacement Reviewer
These terms may sound similar but can describe different situations.
| Term | Typical Meaning | Why It Happens |
|---|---|---|
| Additional reviewer | Another expert joins the assessment | More evidence or expertise required |
| Replacement reviewer | New expert replaces an unavailable invitee/reviewer | Original reviewer declined or cannot continue |
| Re-reviewer | Reviewer assesses a revised version | Editor wants confirmation that revisions addressed concerns |
| Specialist reviewer | Expert evaluates a particular technical area | Manuscript contains specialized methods or subject matter |
| Original reviewer | Expert who reviewed an earlier version | Continuity across revision rounds |
Not every journal uses these labels explicitly, so interpret the terminology according to the individual journal’s workflow.
What If the Additional Reviewer Is Much More Critical?
This is possible, especially when a revised manuscript is evaluated by someone who did not participate in the first round.
A new reviewer approaches the manuscript without precisely the same history as the original reviewer.
However, good editorial practice requires context.
Wiley’s guidance for reviewing revised manuscripts states that when a new reviewer is invited, the editor should explain why and the new reviewer should respect previous feedback and the revisions the author has already made.
If you later receive new comments, focus on their substance rather than questioning why the reviewer was added.
Ask:
- Is the concern scientifically valid?
- Can it be addressed with clarification?
- Does it require additional analysis?
- Does the requested work fall within the study’s original scope?
- Does it contradict an earlier editorial instruction?
Where requests conflict, explain the conflict politely in your response letter rather than silently choosing one recommendation.
How to Respond If the Additional Reviewer Requests Major Changes
If the journal returns another revision decision, approach the response systematically.
PLOS guidance recommends organizing responses clearly and addressing reviewers’ comments point by point when revising a manuscript.
A practical approach is:
- Read the editor’s decision letter before focusing on individual reviews.
- Identify which concerns the editor regards as essential.
- Create a complete list of reviewer comments.
- Categorize them as methodological, analytical, conceptual, reporting, language, formatting, or clarification issues.
- Address each substantive point in the manuscript where appropriate.
- Explain exactly what you changed and where.
- When you disagree, provide a respectful evidence-based explanation.
- Check that one revision has not created inconsistencies elsewhere.
- Review the complete revised manuscript, not merely highlighted passages.
- Submit a clear point-by-point response.
A strong response does not require agreeing with every reviewer statement.
It requires showing that you have considered each substantive concern seriously and responded with appropriate reasoning or revision.
A Checklist for Authors When an Additional Reviewer Appears
Use this checklist before deciding whether you need to take action:
- Have I checked whether the journal explains its peer-review process?
- Am I distinguishing reviewer invitations from completed reviews?
- Do I have any actual evidence that the earlier reviews were negative?
- Could the additional reviewer simply be replacing someone who declined?
- Could specialist expertise be required?
- Is this a revised manuscript that may legitimately need re-review?
- Has the journal’s normal or stated review period actually been exceeded?
- Have I avoided assuming that reviewer recommendations operate by majority vote?
- Am I prepared for revision as well as acceptance or rejection?
- If I contact the journal, can I do so briefly, professionally, and for a genuine reason?
If most of the concern comes from interpreting an online status rather than an actual editorial message, waiting is generally more appropriate than assuming the outcome.
How to Prepare for the Next Editorial Decision
You cannot control what the additional reviewer recommends, but you can control how effectively you respond to the next stage.
If the paper receives minor revision
Focus on completeness.
Minor revision does not mean comments can be ignored because they appear small.
If the paper receives major revision
Prioritize scientific and methodological issues before cosmetic changes.
Maintain a detailed record of every revision.
If the paper is accepted
Complete the journal’s production and documentation requirements carefully.
Acceptance may still be followed by copyediting, proof correction, licensing, or publication-related administrative steps depending on the publisher.
If the paper is rejected
Separate the scientific value of the feedback from the disappointment of the decision.
Reviewer comments may help you strengthen the manuscript before submitting elsewhere.
If another review round is requested
Treat it as another stage of evaluation rather than assuming something has gone wrong.
Peer review may involve more than one cycle, particularly after substantial revision.
How Contentxprtz Can Help During Peer Review
Authors often need the most support after receiving reviewer comments, when they must decide how to revise the manuscript clearly without losing the integrity of the original research.
Contentxprtz provides ethical academic communication support for researchers who want help improving clarity, language, organization, journal presentation, and responses to reviewer feedback.
If your manuscript has returned from peer review, professional research paper editing support can help identify unclear passages, improve academic expression, check consistency between revised sections, and strengthen the presentation of your response.
Professional editing should not replace the researcher’s intellectual responsibility. Authors remain responsible for:
- Their data
- Their methodology
- Their analysis
- Their interpretations
- Their citations
- Their responses to scientific criticism
- Their final submission
Where institutional rules govern third-party editing or AI-assisted writing, researchers should follow those requirements.
Summary: What Does It Mean When Your Paper Goes to an Additional Reviewer?
When your paper goes to an additional reviewer, the safest interpretation is that the editor wants another expert assessment before proceeding.
The reason may be straightforward: an invited reviewer declined, failed to respond, or became unavailable.
Alternatively, the editor may already have reviews but want another opinion because:
- The reports disagree
- A specialist methodological issue needs assessment
- The manuscript has undergone major revision
- Existing reports do not provide enough information for a confident decision
The appointment of another reviewer does not, by itself, reveal whether your manuscript will be accepted, revised, or rejected.
Peer review is also not a simple voting system. Editors evaluate reviewer comments, the manuscript, authors’ revisions where applicable, and the scientific importance of the issues raised before deciding how to proceed.
For most authors, the appropriate response is therefore to monitor the submission, consult journal-specific guidance, and wait for the next formal editorial communication.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What does it mean when your paper goes to an additional reviewer?
It usually means that the editor wants another expert assessment before making or confirming an editorial decision.
An additional reviewer may replace someone who declined, provide a second or third required report, resolve substantially different reviewer opinions, or assess a specialized part of the manuscript.
Therefore, you cannot infer acceptance or rejection simply from the appearance of another reviewer.
Wiley notes that editors may issue additional invitations until they have obtained the reviewer participation needed for the journal’s process.
The most useful response is usually to continue waiting unless the journal requests action from you.
2. Is being sent to an additional reviewer a bad sign?
Not necessarily. It is best regarded as neutral unless the editor has provided additional information.
In some cases, another reviewer is invited for purely logistical reasons because an earlier invitee declined or failed to respond.
In other cases, the editor may require another scientific perspective because the existing reviews disagree or because specialist expertise is required.
Although the extra review may prolong the process, the status itself does not tell you what the eventual decision will be.
Avoid interpreting ordinary workflow information as a hidden rejection signal.
3. Does an additional reviewer mean the first reviewers disagreed?
It can, but disagreement is only one possible explanation.
Editors may seek another report when existing reviewers reach substantially different conclusions. A third specialist can provide additional evidence that helps the editor judge the disputed issue.
However, additional reviewers are also commonly invited because potential reviewers decline, fail to respond, become unavailable, or because the journal still requires another completed report.
Unless the editor explicitly tells you that the reports conflicted, you should not assume disagreement.
4. Can a paper be accepted after going to an additional reviewer?
Yes. An additional review does not prevent a manuscript from eventually being accepted.
The eventual outcome depends on the manuscript, reviewer assessments, revisions where applicable, and the editor’s judgment.
Possible decisions after another review can include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.
Continued peer review indicates continued editorial assessment, not a guaranteed outcome.
Likewise, authors should avoid assuming that the additional review is evidence that acceptance is likely. Wait for the formal editorial decision.
5. Can an additional reviewer be appointed after major revision?
Yes. A revised manuscript may sometimes be evaluated by a new reviewer.
Major revisions are frequently returned to original reviewers, but original reviewers may be unavailable, or the changes may create a need for additional expertise.
Wiley specifically notes that a new reviewer may sometimes be invited when revised manuscripts are assessed.
If this happens to your paper, it does not automatically mean your previous revisions were inadequate.
6. How many reviewers does a journal normally use?
There is no universal number that applies to every journal.
Many journals commonly seek approximately two independent reviewer reports, but practices vary by publication, discipline, manuscript type, and editorial situation.
Wiley notes that the number required is often two but may differ between journals.
Importantly, the number of people invited may be considerably larger than the number who actually submit reports.
Check the specific journal’s peer-review policy rather than treating any particular number as an academic rule.
7. Does a third reviewer decide the result when the first two disagree?
Not in the sense of casting a deciding vote.
The third reviewer provides another expert assessment. The editor then considers the manuscript and the substance of the relevant reports.
For example, two reviewers may support publication while another identifies a serious methodological flaw. The editor cannot responsibly ignore the flaw simply because the positive reviewers are numerically in the majority.
Conversely, one negative recommendation does not automatically require rejection if the editor determines that its reasoning is not persuasive.
Reviewer reports support editorial judgment; they do not normally function as a simple voting system.
8. How long should I wait when an additional reviewer has been invited?
There is no universal waiting period because journal review times vary substantially.
Time is required not only for reviewing but also for locating appropriate experts and obtaining their agreement.
Wiley advises authors that peer-review timelines vary between journals and that journal-specific information should be consulted.
Check the journal’s published guidance and your editorial correspondence.
If the manuscript substantially exceeds the stated or typical timeframe, a polite status inquiry may be reasonable.
9. Should I contact the editor if another reviewer is added?
Usually not immediately.
The addition of another reviewer is normally part of the journal’s internal peer-review process.
Contacting the editor becomes more appropriate when the manuscript is substantially beyond a stated review timeframe, when an editorial deadline has passed without communication, or when you have a genuinely important matter the journal needs to know.
If you do inquire, keep the message brief and professional. Ask for an update rather than demanding an immediate decision.
10. What should I do if the additional reviewer asks for another major revision?
Read the editor’s decision letter carefully and address the scientific substance of the new report systematically.
Create a point-by-point response, revise the manuscript where appropriate, and explain respectfully when you cannot or should not make a requested change. PLOS recommends clear responses to reviewer comments and identification of the corresponding manuscript changes during revision.
If new comments conflict with earlier editorial instructions, identify the conflict transparently rather than attempting to satisfy incompatible requests silently.
The goal is to demonstrate thoughtful engagement with the review while preserving the accuracy and integrity of your research.
About the Author
Dr. Aanya Mehta
Research Writer & Professional Business Communicator
Dr. Aanya Mehta is a research-oriented writer and professional communicator with a strong focus on accuracy, clarity, and evidence-based insight. Her work combines analytical thinking with accessible writing, helping readers understand complex business topics through well-researched, credible, and practical content.
Conclusion
When your manuscript goes to an additional reviewer, it is understandable to wonder what the change means for your chances of publication.
The most important point is that an additional reviewer is not, by itself, a rejection signal or an acceptance signal.
The editor may simply be replacing an unavailable reviewer, trying to obtain the required number of independent assessments, seeking specialist expertise, requesting another perspective because reports disagree, or arranging re-review of a substantially revised manuscript.
Peer review is designed to give editors informed expert assessments. The final editorial judgment depends on the quality and validity of the arguments raised—not merely the number of reviewers recommending a particular outcome.
As an author, your most productive approach is to follow the journal’s process, avoid overinterpreting tracking-system changes, and prepare carefully for the next formal decision.
If revisions arrive, focus first on scientific substance, then on clarity and presentation. When the underlying research is sound but the revised manuscript or reviewer response would benefit from closer language, structure, and consistency review, ethical professional research paper editing support can provide an additional quality check while preserving your authorship and intellectual responsibility.
The article has been structured according to the supplied requirement for publication-ready, directly reusable text rather than HTML or technical web code.
“At Contentxprtz, we don’t just edit; we help ideas reach their fullest potential.”
