A lot of the replies make it seem like there is some great over-arching coordination and intent between subsequent submissions, but I’ll offer up an alternative explanation: sometimes the reviewer selection is an utter crap shoot. Just because the first set of reviewers may offer a justification for rejection, it may be completely unrelated to the rationale of a different set of reviewers. Reviewers are human and bring all kinds of biases and perspectives into the process.
It’s frustrating but the result of a somewhat haphazard process. It’s also not uncommon for conflicting comments within the same review cycle. Some of this may be attributed to a lack of clear communication by the author. But on occasion, it leads me to believe many journals don’t take a lot of time selecting appropriate reviewers and settle for the first few that agree to review.
It’s frustrating but the result of a somewhat haphazard process. It’s also not uncommon for conflicting comments within the same review cycle. Some of this may be attributed to a lack of clear communication by the author. But on occasion, it leads me to believe many journals don’t take a lot of time selecting appropriate reviewers and settle for the first few that agree to review.