Pushing back on reader's report

[emprof]

A recent article got one glowing reader's report. The second reader's report says it's well-written and worthwhile, then proceeds to trash it and ask me to write a different one. Some of the comments make it clear the reader isn't familiar with the literature I'm citing, doesn't read one of the critical languages for the work, and wants me to do a ton of extra analysis so I can include a methodological approach that fell out of use 20 years ago. It's pretty scathing, too. This isn't my first rodeo, but in more than 20 reader's reports, this one stands out for its sheer arrogance and mean-spirited language.

I'm currently composing my cover letter for the revised article, which incorporates most of Reader 1's suggestions and about 30% of Reader 2's. I'm struggling to find a balance between professionalism and pointing these problems out to the journal's editorial board. So do I:

Stick to summarizing what I DID change, and let the board read between the lines?

Address each of Reader 2's critiques and rebut them individually?

Take the middle road, and give a summary of why I didn't make certain changes they asked for?

[Hegemony]

Somewhere between 2 and 3. Rebut the most egregious of the complaints, nicely and without rancor, so it doesn't look like you're just grumpy about being criticized, but have genuine scholarly reasons for not accepting the reader's objections. But don't rebut every single one of them down to the tiniest, or it will look as if you're just a contrarian.

[Puget]

I'm sure this varies by field. In my field (and I think for the sciences in general) the cover letter for an R&R is expected to address each reviewer point (i.e., each reviewer point followed by a response either saying how you revised to address or explaining very carefully why you didn't).

Usually I find some way to say we revised in response to a comment, even if I'm not doing what the reviewer asked-- so for example if they are asking for something that is beyond the scope of the current paper we may add a line saying something the reviewer suggested as a possible "future direction" to the discussion section.

[Myword]

I stopped reading reviewer comments when the article is rejected  and no chance to rewrite.
I feel better not hearing nasty or petty complaints.

[Parasaurolophus]

Take the middle road, and give a summary of why I didn't make certain changes they asked for?

I do this, and it's worked out fine for me. But n=1

I should add that I don't usually do it, however; usually, like Puget, I find some way to address everything. But I'm not shy about not doing stuff that I genuinely think, after a few weeks' reflection, is too far off-topic (or wrong). I then explain, in as earnest and kind a tone as I can, why I think that change in particular is unwarranted. The other small caveat is that when I do this, I try not to do it for too many of the comments.

[aside]

I address each of the reviewer's comments, but generally take the middle road you mention, OP, rather than a point-by-point rebuttal.  The main thing is to not respond in kind to a mean-spirited review.   

[Kron3007]

Like Puget, in my field it is standard to address reviewer comments point by point.  I think this is a good approach as it makes it much more clear how you have (or have not) addressed every issue that was raised.  I have had some papers accepted when I did not incorporate many of the reviewers' suggestions, but I always had good justification for this.  The key is to be polite and logically explain the flaws in the critique.   

[pigou]

I'm sure this varies by field. In my field (and I think for the sciences in general) the cover letter for an R&R is expected to address each reviewer point (i.e., each reviewer point followed by a response either saying how you revised to address or explaining very carefully why you didn't).

This is also the norm in my field and I agree that it's good practice. The key is to make the reviewers feel appreciated for taking the time to give comments and figure out why they made the comment. Perhaps they didn't read the paper closely and missed something fundamental, in which case it's probably a good idea to rewrite some of it. You can then write in your response what you actually did and how you "clarified" this part in the manuscript. Most readers will spend much less time on the paper than even the least conscientious reviewer, so...

I stopped reading reviewer comments when the article is rejected  and no chance to rewrite.
I feel better not hearing nasty or petty complaints.

This may differ by field, but in my area this would be a really bad strategy. There's a decent chance you get the same reviewer more than once and submitting a paper elsewhere without even trying to see what they suggested isn't going to make them happy. But more importantly, seeing if there are reasonable comments or things you can easily address also makes it less likely that the paper gets rejected at the next journal.

[jerseyjay]

Perhaps they didn't read the paper closely and missed something fundamental, in which case it's probably a good idea to rewrite some of it. You can then write in your response what you actually did and how you "clarified" this part in the manuscript. Most readers will spend much less time on the paper than even the least conscientious reviewer, so...

I think that this is really important. I have received reports that criticize me for saying something I haven't said, or for not addressing something I have addressed, etc. Usually, I stew for a bit, but the point is that somebody--an expert who read the piece relatively carefully--misunderstood what I said. That is actually quite valuable to know. I usually rephrase or rework my argument to clarify it.

I stopped reading reviewer comments when the article is rejected  and no chance to rewrite.
I feel better not hearing nasty or petty complaints.

This may differ by field, but in my area this would be a really bad strategy. There's a decent chance you get the same reviewer more than once and submitting a paper elsewhere without even trying to see what they suggested isn't going to make them happy. But more importantly, seeing if there are reasonable comments or things you can easily address also makes it less likely that the paper gets rejected at the next journal.
[/quote]
Again I agree, for both of these reasons.

Personally, as a writer and researcher, I find negative reviews more useful than negative reviews. Positive reviews rarely give me anything to work worth, whereas negative reviews allow me to focus my work and improve. Of course I prefer published papers over unpublished papers, but I also do not believe that I am such a perfect writer that my writing cannot be improved. When I have received an outright accept decision, I often wonder if perhaps the reader wasn't careful enough in his/her reading. I am in history, and our journal articles are around for a long time, so I prefer mine be as good as possible. I would rather get a nasty reader's report for a draft instead of negative reactions for a published article.

[Myword]

Then you have thicker skin than I do. You would get vehement negativity when the paper involves or affects reviewer's emotions and deep personal convictions, such as in religion or politics. An ordinary academic quibble or quarrel is unlikely to cause nasty responses, unless the paper is badly written and unprofessional. That's how I see it. I have read too many petty unwarranted comments.

[hungry_ghost]

Coming late to this:

Step 1: I typically write a point-by-point list of what I'm going to change. This is for myself, and it's like a checklist or a to-do list. If there is anything I don't want to change, I explain why as best I can. Sometimes I use cuss words. Again, this is for myself.

Step 2: Then I update and revise my list as I actually make the changes. At this point I often find that there was an unclear place in my writing, and the recommendations I intend to reject arise from misunderstanding. So I revise my list and reframe some of my original "hell noes!" to something like "my revisions go a different direction from what Reviewer B suggested, but I am grateful to B for calling attention to ambiguities in my writing." Also, I delete any cuss words.

Step 3: Depends on the journal. If it's an editor I know, I write and ask "would you like a complete list?" and if they say yes, then Step 4: I revise my list into something presentable. If they say no, then I don't send them anything.

Step 5: I always acknowledge reviewers, even if their comments p!ss me off. Once I spent a long, long, long time (far longer than one normally would) writing helpful, constructive comments on a very messy first article by a young scholar in my field who had apparently been "mentored by wolves." The article went through several rounds of R&R. I was furious when the final article, which incorporated a lot of my comments, did not acknowledge the reviewers.

A colleague likes to say that reviewer comments she disagrees with "give her something to write against." I love this phrase. She means that such comments help her clarify her thoughts and explain clearly why she does NOT want to make a particular argument or to organize her work a particular way or to follow a particular suggestion. So even comments I disagree with can be extremely helpful.

[polly_mer]

The second reader's report says it's well-written and worthwhile, then proceeds to trash it and ask me to write a different one.

When this is the case, I address the points that matter to the paper I did write and put a lot of time (often with a colleague's or three's help) into a paragraph or two regarding why certain reviewer points are out of scope for this paper.  Anyone who wants me to have used a different, non-standard method has an interesting take, but unfortunately that's outside the scope of this particular work.  Anyone who has completely ignored the relevant literature in favor of irrelevant literature has good suggestions, but doesn't help the reader enough for the extra length required.

It's bad form to completely ignore Reviewer 2's comments, but incorporating about 30% with an explanation of how the other 70% are more indicative of wanting a different paper is pretty common in my experience on all sides.

[Parasaurolophus]

It's bad form to completely ignore Reviewer 2's comments, but incorporating about 30% with an explanation of how the other 70% are more indicative of wanting a different paper is pretty common in my experience on all sides.

I think that's right. FWIW, when I get an author's changelog back and they tell me some of my comments would take the paper too far afield, I take it on the chin.

(Of course, most of you have way more experience than I do, so I defer to that experience!)

[delsur]

Coming late to this:


Step 5: I always acknowledge reviewers, even if their comments p!ss me off. Once I spent a long, long, long time (far longer than one normally would) writing helpful, constructive comments on a very messy first article by a young scholar in my field who had apparently been "mentored by wolves." The article went through several rounds of R&R. I was furious when the final article, which incorporated a lot of my comments, did not acknowledge the reviewers.

In my field in the humanities, acknowledgement of reviewers is quite common in books but not so common in journal articles. How is this typically done? In an endnote or footnote, perhaps? My first peer-reviewed article required the kind of work from reviewers that you describe. I really did want to thank or acknowledge their contribution but I guess I thought that wasn't done.

[hungry_ghost]

Coming late to this:


Step 5: I always acknowledge reviewers, even if their comments p!ss me off. Once I spent a long, long, long time (far longer than one normally would) writing helpful, constructive comments on a very messy first article by a young scholar in my field who had apparently been "mentored by wolves." The article went through several rounds of R&R. I was furious when the final article, which incorporated a lot of my comments, did not acknowledge the reviewers.

In my field in the humanities, acknowledgement of reviewers is quite common in books but not so common in journal articles. How is this typically done? In an endnote or footnote, perhaps? My first peer-reviewed article required the kind of work from reviewers that you describe. I really did want to thank or acknowledge their contribution but I guess I thought that wasn't done.

In my field (also humanities) acknowledgments of all kinds, including thanking anonymous reviewers, colleagues who have read and offered comments, funding sources, libraries, etc, typically appear in an initial note at the foot of the first page of the article. Usually there is no number, or it is somehow indicated by layout that it's not a regular footnote.
I was fortunate that the editor of the journal in which I published my first peer-reviewed piece socialized me by gently reminding me that the reviewers deserved my thanks in a short note.

Do other fields do this?