Unsure how to respond to uneven review and rejection

[emprof]

I plan to talk to my trusted senior mentors about this but would appreciate the fora's view. A press expressed strong interest in my book after reading the first half of it. They were especially interested in one aspect and asked me to emphasize it.  I rewrote the manuscript to foreground that.

Normally they'd get 2 reviews,  but the second reviewer has severely delayed their report, pleading covid upheaval. I think all of us can appreciate that. The first reviewer praises the topic and thesis,  has some valid complaints about the organization,  but recommends rejection specifically because of the aspect I emphasized, and pulls the old "write a completely different book, the way I would have done it." I'm no stranger to that line,  but usually there's another report to balance it out. In this case the press have decided to invite me to withdraw the manuscript without waiting for the second review, in light of the extended delay and the first reviewer's recommendations. Which I know is their prerogative, and I fully acknowledge the reviewer made some valid criticisms. But it feels like the rug has been pulled out from under me and am wondering how/if to address it. Or should I just say "thanks" and edit the manuscript to start shopping it around again? This isn't (yet) a rejection on the face of it,  but I wonder if I can press for the second reviewer's report at least?

There's no clock on this.  I have tenure and, because of a major family emergency, won't be able to work on this for a few months anyways.

[jerseyjay]

That's unfortunate.

However, I think it it is important to think about what you want to get out of any correspondence? If you want to blow off steam at the injustice of the review process and academia in general, I would look for different forums (like this one). Sending off a note to the editor in this vein probably won't accomplish much except burn bridges with that press.

If you think you have a chance of getting the manuscript accepted by the press, then you can (politely) make a case. Since the press has already decided to not pursue the book, I am not sure that there is much hope in this.

If you want honest feedback from the editor, you can write him or her, but chances are he or she has already said their piece.

Since you have a draft manuscript which has been praised by several people, and you have what you admit are some valid criticisms, I would revise the draft in light of the comments that you think are valid and submit it elsewhere. Keep in mind that no book, published or not, will please everybody.

I am not sure what field you are in, but personally, I find books that emphasize methodology really boring, unless the book is specifically about that methodology. I would emphasize the methodology in the introduction when I try to differentiate my work from others (Unlike other recent books on the French Revolution, I am basing mine on seances with Robespierre, which allows me to bring key insights.....). If I was asked to review a manuscript and it continually referenced the methodology, I would be less than happy. But of course other disciplines may differ--I am in history--and even within the same discipline different folks have different views. If the reviewer rejected the methodology altogether, and not just the way it was presented, then I would say you need to make a case in the introduction why the methodology you chose was appropriate and vaild.

[Wahoo Redux]

Try damning with faint praise.

I once received a R&R from two readers that were pretty negative but very helpful.  I thanked the editor.  I rewrote the article, sent it back to the journal
...waited....waited...queried...waited...queried...finally explained that I was getting ready for the job market and wondered if I could get a decision.

I got back a third reader's report that was nothing short of a temper tantrum.  And it was pretty clear that hu had not read past the first two pages of the article.

When the article was rejected I made a point of emailing the editor and thanking the first two readers and praising their insights, which were deserved, and carefully made no mention of the third reader. 

[Hibush]

In light of the contradictory information you have received, it seems fair to ask for a phone call to help you understand what was of interest, and where the work fell short of publishability. You are not challenging the decision, just trying to understand better the information the editor has provided over the term of your discussion. Perhaps alsso to better understand your options at this point. (While they are not interested in arguing about the decision, they should be interested in helping the author of a work into which they have themselves put a fair bit of time and attention. They can give you nuance by phone that would not necessarily be in an email.

[mamselle]

Love the "seances with Robespierre" methodology.

Do you need an IRB  for that?

M.

[Cheerful]

In this case the press have decided to invite me to withdraw the manuscript without waiting for the second review, in light of the extended delay and the first reviewer's recommendations. Which I know is their prerogative, and I fully acknowledge the reviewer made some valid criticisms. But it feels like the rug has been pulled out from under me and am wondering how/if to address it. Or should I just say "thanks" and edit the manuscript to start shopping it around again? This isn't (yet) a rejection on the face of it,  but I wonder if I can press for the second reviewer's report at least?

Sounds like the press finds Reviewer 1 convincing and would reject regardless of what Reviewer 2 might have said. You could wait another six months and never get Review 2 and the outcome would be same:  reject.

I would revise the ms. as you think best and ship elsewhere as soon as possible.  Try to provide a different list of reviewers than the ones you provided to this press (or at least exclude the person whom you think torpedoed your project).

Good luck!