# When conducting a follow-up review for a paper you already made comments on, how detailed should the review be? Tags: peer-review - Score: 6 - Views: 426 - Answers: 1 - Answered: yes - Asked by: Chris Gregg (18234 rep) - Asked: 2013-07-07 - Site: academia ## Question I think the title stands on its own, but I am not sure how detailed to make follow-up reviewer comments for a paper. My sense is that I don't need to re-review the paper, but just comment on whether or not I am satisfied with the changes the authors made. This leaves a rather skimpy review the second time around. ## Answers ### Answer by Peter Jansson (score: 7 [ACCEPTED]) The extent of a re-review depends on what has been done with the manuscript (MS). If the first review round yielded questions and comments that can be fixed but may require checking to make sure the implementation of the comments are correct, then, as you say, you will not have to do a full-blown re-review. If, on the other hand, the revisions are such that the MS has been substantially modified, perhaps with new parts added, new data included, etc. the situation is different. Then the paper is so modified it is in some way more of a new MS