Researchers face repeated rejection cycles when peer reviewers ignore their revisions and recycle previous criticisms

Academic researchers investing months in revising manuscripts based on reviewer feedback experience devastating rejections in Round 2 when the same reviewer recycles identical criticisms they already addressed in their revision. This creates a Sisyphean cycle where researchers waste time, emotional energy, and opportunity cost without clear recourse, as the peer review system lacks accountability mechanisms for reviewers who fail to actually read revisions or engage with author responses.