how to deal with unkind journal reviewers?

[Vid]

All,

I need a little advice to understand people/reviewers. we had a great research work that is funded by NSF and we submitted it in the top journal in my field. In the first round we got a major revision, and the second reviewer said to do X, Y, Z which caused us to replace a portion of research and replace it with another model that he/she proposed. we resubmitted the paper before Xmas. We received the journal' decision today. The first and the third reviewers said "minor revision" but the second reviewer "rejected" the paper and the AE recommended declining our paper.

We have done a lot of hard work and we replaced the previous model with the methodology that he/she proposed (we coded his/her proposed method).

This reviewer just said thank you for addressing my comments and then provided 3-4 lines arguing your methodologies don't make sense, this was the method that he proposed! I am really confused and don't really get this.

How to deal with an unkind reviewer? not sure how Editors make decision based on biased comments. I feel frustrated!

Thank you, all. 

[Sun_Worshiper]

I recommend black magic to curse the reviewer: https://www.wikihow.com/Put-a-Curse-on-Someone

As for the paper, you could try to appeal the decision with the editor, or move on. Appeal probably won't work, so I'd probably just skip this step and try my luck elsewhere. On the upside, the paper is probably very good now and so you should have a better outcome at the next journal.

Good luck with the curse and with the manuscript!

[fizzycist]

This is a relatively rare case where an "appeal" has a decent chance of working. You should respond to the reviews in the normal way (including response to all 3 reviewers' comments), point out that 2/3 reviewers support publication, and ask that another reviewer be consulted.

I cannot comment on what the reviewer was thinking and why they seemed to contradict themselves--it's possible you misunderstood their comments or maybe they just changed their minds. A reversal like this where it feels like a reviewer will never be satisfied is frustrating but not that uncommon.

Either way, IMO one should never bend to the will of a reviewer if you disagree with them. If you included the new model because you thought it was a good idea then own it, no need to complain. If you did it just to appease a reviewer then that was a mistake and you probably should not admit it in your response.

Also, don't assume pronouns for the reviewer.

Finally, rejection at top journals happens all the time, is often highly arbitrary, and should not impact your own view of your work. Or at least that is what I tell myself and my trainees every time it happens to us (which is at least once for most papers)!

[Parasaurolophus]

After making a good-faith effort to deal with what I think is the source of the problem, I just ignore them and move on. I've gotten some pretty nasty ones, and I know a few people--including some at the very top of the field--who have received horrifically nasty ones. You just have to shrug and move on.

But if I get too many too nasty ones--or the editor passes one on that's just way too mean-sprited (rather than keeping it back), then the journal earns a strike in my book and I think long and hard before submitting to them again (or refereeing for them, for that matter).

[zyzzx]

It's not clear how this is unkind. Thanking you for addressing the comments sounds like they were actually trying to be polite.

It sounds like the second reviewer had a problem with the method in the first round, and so suggested a new model. It may be that they thought this change would clarify things or improve the analysis, or whatever. Then they still had a problem with the method in the revision. Maybe they are a total jerk, or maybe the suggested changes didn't solve the problem or showed something that raised new concerns.   
Maybe the reviewer is totally wrong and your paper is awesome! But frankly, a top journal has more to lose from publishing a methodologically flawed paper than from rejecting one of the many awesome papers they receive.

Getting a paper accepted in a top journal is not a reward for effort and the review process is not an exercise in ticking off reviewer requests with guaranteed acceptance at the end. Many papers can be brought up to top journal standard through the review process, and many cannot. It totally sucks to end up in that second category (and of course we never agree that our own papers belong there), but it's not necessarily unethical, biased, or even unkind on the part of the reviewers and editors to reject something after a round of revision. Particularly when it comes to questions about the fundamentals of the study - issues with methods are the kind of thing that may be unresolvable, and it may take a round of revision to see that. If a reviewer that didn't recommend rejection in the first round switched to rejection for the revision, then an editor should take that seriously.

Some people absolutely are nasty; I have gotten these reviews. But just providing critical comments on a paper and recommending rejection for something they think should not be published is not that.

[Faith786]

I recommend black magic to curse the reviewer: https://www.wikihow.com/Put-a-Curse-on-Someone

As for the paper, you could try to appeal the decision with the editor, or move on. Appeal probably won't work, so I'd probably just skip this step and try my luck elsewhere. On the upside, the paper is probably very good now and so you should have a better outcome at the next journal.

Good luck with the curse and with the manuscript!

OMG, I can't believe that recommendation, lol. Seriously, I didn't think people were into that stuff at all these days.

[polly_mer]

Some people absolutely are nasty; I have gotten these reviews. But just providing critical comments on a paper and recommending rejection for something they think should not be published is not that.

This.  There's a huge difference between


Even with revisions, this paper still has a misapplied methodology and misses key points X and Y.  Recommendation: major revisions to bring the paper into alignment with standard practices.

and


This isn't even science!  I cannot believe that someone would submit something so poor to a major journal.  Not only should this paper be revoked, but someone should look into revoking the senior author's PhD for trying to publish such crap.

The first is a professional critique; the second is nasty.

As the author, one does not know if the two reviewers who are suggesting only minor revisions are very new to the field and therefore less reliable than the reviewer who is a giant in the field.  One cannot know if the two minor revision recommenders did anything more than a skim while the other reviewer put effort into reviewing.  One also cannot know (but likely is not the case here if the editor is going with reject) if the one reviewer is only in a tangential field and therefore doesn't understand the norms of the relevant field while  the two positive reviewers know the field.  I mention this one because that was the case for the reviewer who insisted our paper that used a very common model in the field wasn't even science.

[Vid]

Thank you, all.

The submission was for a special issue in this top journal that was specifically designed for this type of research with the specific data, etc.


Would you recommend contacting the Editor?

[Vid]

I also agree with some of your comments that no matter whatever we do it is not enough for some reviewers!

I am sorry but I don't feel that this reviewer was kind enough if he wanted to reject the paper he could do it in the first round. Rejecting the paper after implementing his/her comments isn't a fair game (we are dealing with broken hearts that we didn't break and insecurities that we didn't create)!

[polly_mer]

Publishing is not about your feelings.  Going in asserting feelings is not going to work, especially if the editor isn't already a close colleague.

If you can get support from big names in this specific area that the reviewer is wrong, then you have evidence to take to the editor.  I've been contacted a few times for that kind of support.  Sometimes, I then write something for the editor.  Other times, I have pointed out that the critical reviewer is correct and have made additional suggestions to help improve the paper.  Sometimes, that works and sometimes people are huffy and go looking for another expert.

It sounds a lot like your best bet at this point is to put the paper aside for a while and then have a talk with people whose opinion you trust in this area of research to get perspective.

Then, consider contacting the editor if the answer to the questions below are: sorta and absolutely

Do you know the editor and can just have a phone call with all your cards on the table?

Do you know someone who knows the editor and can you have a quiet word to get perspective before making a call to the editor?

[polly_mer]

I also agree with some of your comments that no matter whatever we do it is not enough for some reviewers!

I am sorry but I don't feel that this reviewer was kind enough if he wanted to reject the paper he could do it in the first round. Rejecting the paper after implementing his/her comments isn't a fair game (we are dealing with broken hearts that we didn't break and insecurities that we didn't create)!

Are you sure that you have implemented the suggestions?  Students are not the only ones who don't always hit the mark right away.  I'm editing a journal issue right now and it's incredible how few people managed to follow all the instructions and guidance on the first go.

It's actually a good sign that this reviewer still wants to iterate instead of saying, "No hope.  Reject!"  It is much nastier to give up immediately instead of iterating to a good paper.

[Ruralguy]

I agree with Polly's interpretation and the suggestions.

Heck, I just got a 3 person reviewed paper back from the editor that was  1 reject and 2 said "good idea but needs major revisions" and I thought I skated! The editor is allowing an R&R.

The reviewers only have an obligation to *not* be ad hominem or clearly insulting (though the reviewer who just rejected my last paper from above said it had "very little physics" in it, and I think he's kind of full of crud, but I get the point. There was one section that had a lot of math. I did it for clarity! But I think it had the opposite effect).

To last decades in this business, even at my "paper every so often from a teacher at a so-so SLAC" level, you really need to develop a thick skin! You are at an R1 and need to constantly be writing for grants and articles, so you'll go nuts if you stay sensitive.  Vent to a spouse, partner, trusted colleague, faithful dog or aloof cat.  Then follow Polly's advice.

[Ruralguy]

Vid-

I doubt you'd want your tenure committee to just say "REJECT...NEXT!" Its part of the same principle. People are attempting to be honest and helpful, but sometimes honest suggestions can seem hurtful.

By the way, never, ever read these late at night when they hit your inbox. Always psych yourself up for taking either the worst or the best. Imagine all possible responses and what you'd do about it (besides murder I mean) . Then wait a few hours and read the reviews.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Putting aside whether the editor is justified in their decision, appeal is unlikely to be successful. My advice to a colleague would be to move on. Submit to the next journal asap.

[Vid]

Thank you, all. Yes, I am going to move on, I don't feel I would win this if I appeal it. anyway....

I am going to have a zoom meeting with my collaborators/co-authors to see what would be the next step.

Thank you sweet people...