Jeff R Powell , Zoe Lindo

Peer-review is an integral part of the scientific process, but getting a sufficient number of busy scientists to provide constructive reviews on a manuscript can be a challenge. The majority of individuals that we polled have had experience in the last two years with having manuscripts rejected and then submitting them elsewhere and/or with receiving invitations to review the same manuscript for different journals. Many experienced these events multiple times in that period. Authors who have had manuscripts rejected from journals after review have the opportunity to improve their manuscripts in light of reviewer comments. However, unless the next journal that these manuscripts are sent to has technical means for transferring reviews from the previous journal, the current practice for most journals is that these manuscripts are treated as if they had not yet undergone any peer review. Providing authors the option to submit responses to previous reviewer comments with details about how the manuscript has been revised since rejection from the previous journal is a practical means to increase the efficiency of peer review, requiring fewer reviews and leading to more rapid publication. Pedobiologia – Journal of Soil Ecology invites authors to include previous reviewer reports and detailed responses with new submissions.