An Editor strongly against second rounds of peer review

See below an extract from a recent post by Stephen Heard, Professor at the University of New Brunswick making a case against the second rounds of peer review:

“…But there’s one big consideration that swings the balance strongly against second rounds of peer review, and that’s the limited capacity of the reviewer pool. Editors these days struggle to find willing reviewers. It’s not uncommon to hear of someone needing to ask 10 or 15 or even 30 people to secure two willing reviewers. We’re all busy, and the impacts on academia of the pandemic have left people burnt out and exhausted. With willing reviewers in short supply, it just doesn’t make sense to draw down that pool for a round of review that (usually) isn’t necessary.

So as an editor I’ve changed the way I operate. No matter how major the revisions are, I send out a manuscript for a second round of review only if I genuinely can’t judge whether the new version satisfies the suggestions from the first round of review. That may be true if, for instance, there are major new experiments, lots of new data, or an analysis so qualitatively different that I’m essentially dealing with a whole new manuscript. But these cases are rare. Ninety percent of the time (at least), I should be able to make the call without calling on reviewers again…”