Author submits journal version 1

Editor+Reviewer finish review and complain about aspects A, B and C

Author prepares new version addressing A,B and C

Editor+Reviewer finish second review and now complain about aspects D, E and F (completely unrelated to A, B and C).

Author prepares a new version addressing D, E and F

This looks like an infinite loop to me! That’s not how I understand a review process. To me, a review process for a journal should have at most two reviewing iterations. In the first one you complain about all things you don’t like about the paper. Then, the author may reply to that and in the second iteration you decide whether the answer (and the corrections on the paper) are satisfactory.

The second iteration is NOT the time to point out new concerns (of course, unless they are related to the modifications on the paper made by the author after the first iteration). If you didn’t do a good job reviewing the paper in the first iteration it’s your fault, not the author’s one. The reviewing process is long enough already. Authors should have a clear view since the beginning of its length. Having three or more reviewer iterations and end up with the paper rejected, apart from pissing you off a lot, usually leaves you with very few alternatives. CS change so fast that after so this time the paper may not be “fashionable” anymore.

Unfortunately, I’m not making this up. Happened to me already twice. And btw the paper was rejected (the second paper is still under review) because, according to the reviewer, we had not properly answered his/her new concerns.