how to deal with unkind journal reviewers?

[research_prof]

When you receive a major revision, it means that the reviewers are giving you another chance, but still they have concerns about your paper that need to be addressed. Personally, as a reviewer if I review a paper that has parts I do not quite understand or have questions about it, I will include my questions in my review and recommend a major revision, so that I give a chance to the authors to clear my confusion. It can be my fault not understanding something at the very end.

In any case, there have been cases I have rejected papers after giving major revisions. In one case, the authors did not even try to address my comments, so they basically told me something like "we believe we have done enough work and that's it, so you have to be ok with it". In another case, I pointed out a flaw in the methodology used and the authors basically addressed part of the flaw, but overall the flaw was still there. In another case, the authors confused me even more with their response.

So, the reviewers did not really change their mind. They simply gave you a chance to explain yourself, but they probably were not happy with the provided explanation. This is something that can happen and again a major revision does not mean your paper will be eventually accepted.

[Volhiker78]

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...

This is a wise and mature approach.   My experience is that is extremely rare for an editor to override the associate editor in these situations.   Your co-authors may also be outraged but as the senior author, your decision is the one that should be followed. 

[Ruralguy]

And if this is something like Nature or Science, don't let it get to you. "Everyone" gets rejected for those
(well, not for every article, but somewhere along the line).

[darkstarrynight]

I will tell you from an editor perspective that we have two comments sections for reviewers, one for authors to see and one for editors only. Often, reviewers put more raw feedback and share emotions in comments to editors, and try to keep the "nasty" tone out of the comments to authors. However, as an editor, I can edit the comments to authors before I send them to an author with a manuscript decision, so it is possible that the editor received other feedback from reviewer 2 that was harsh and decided to not send it along, thus leaving you with missing information to understand the decision. I recently had to reject a manuscript after the author(s) submitted a revision, because even though one reviewer selected revise and one selected reject, there was nothing the author could do (after already doing a major revision) to get the manuscript to where it would need to be to satisfy both reviewers' concerns. The one willing to take a second revision was not happy with how comments were dismissed about the author's instrument and lack of information about its validity in research.

[Hibush]

I have rejected papers after giving major revisions. In one case, the authors did not even try to address my comments, so they basically told me something like "we believe we have done enough work and that's it, so you have to be ok with it".

I have seen that approach tried as well. I've never seen it work, though.

[Puget]

Others have given good advice-- give yourself a few days to mourn/be mad, then move on. It is critical not to take rejections personally-- we all get lots of them, you need a thick skin in this business.

I would just add from a reviewer perspective, sometimes revisions reveal something new that undermines the paper. For example, I may ask for clarification on methods and it becomes clear there is a fatal flaw. Not saying that's true in your case, but it can be a reason a paper is rejected after an R&R.

[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!

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

I was just kidding around. But if you try it and it works, let me know! There are a few folks out there that I wouldn't mind hexing.

[fizzycist]

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...

This is a wise and mature approach.   My experience is that is extremely rare for an editor to override the associate editor in these situations.   Your co-authors may also be outraged but as the senior author, your decision is the one that should be followed.

That's not how an "appeal" in this case needs to proceed. One just resubmits the paper and asks the same editor to reconsider and give it to a 4th reviewer. I've done that twice in my career and was successful both times. In both cases it was 2/3 agreeing for minor revisions + 1 difficult reviewer, just like OP.

I mean it's totally up to OP, and maybe they decide this isn't worth their time, but this is very much an appealable situation and editors are normal ppl like us who aren't always 100% sure their first decision was correct.

[Faith786]

I was just kidding around. But if you try it and it works, let me know! There are a few folks out there that I wouldn't mind hexing.

Ah, ha ha, okay.  Well, I won't be trying any of that sort of stuff...it actually scares me a tiny bit...ever since I saw The Skeleton Key with Kate Hudson, lol.

[Volhiker78]

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...
[/quote


This is a wise and mature approach.   My experience is that is extremely rare for an editor to override the associate editor in these situations.   Your co-authors may also be outraged but as the senior author, your decision is the one that should be followed.

That's not how an "appeal" in this case needs to proceed. One just resubmits the paper and asks the same editor to reconsider and give it to a 4th reviewer. I've done that twice in my career and was successful both times. In both cases it was 2/3 agreeing for minor visions + 1 difficult reviewer, just like OP.

I mean it's totally up to OP, and maybe they decide this isn't worth their time, but this is very much an appealable situation and editors are normal ppl like us who aren't always 100% sure their first decision was correct.

When I was an AE and conflicting recommendations came in from reviewers on a revision, I made my recommendation based on how I felt about the negative review.  So if a negative reviewer brought up relevant concerns, that carried a lot of weight and likely would trump 2 or even 3 positive reviews.  It wasn't a majority rule situation.  Vid would need to effective rebut the negative reviewer's second review.  That's a tough row to hoe. 

[fizzycist]

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...
[/quote


This is a wise and mature approach.   My experience is that is extremely rare for an editor to override the associate editor in these situations.   Your co-authors may also be outraged but as the senior author, your decision is the one that should be followed.

That's not how an "appeal" in this case needs to proceed. One just resubmits the paper and asks the same editor to reconsider and give it to a 4th reviewer. I've done that twice in my career and was successful both times. In both cases it was 2/3 agreeing for minor visions + 1 difficult reviewer, just like OP.

I mean it's totally up to OP, and maybe they decide this isn't worth their time, but this is very much an appealable situation and editors are normal ppl like us who aren't always 100% sure their first decision was correct.

When I was an AE and conflicting recommendations came in from reviewers on a revision, I made my recommendation based on how I felt about the negative review.  So if a negative reviewer brought up relevant concerns, that carried a lot of weight and likely would trump 2 or even 3 positive reviews.  It wasn't a majority rule situation.  Vid would need to effective rebut the negative reviewer's second review.  That's a tough row to hoe.

Yes, of course. I was speaking under the assumption that OP thinks they have a strong rebuttal (otherwise why would they post?). And there is always a good chance that editor doesn't agree with rebuttal. But it seems worth a try in this scenario, since the answer may come quickly.

[Myword]

I got rejected and once again, I doubt the reviewer read the paper carefully or even finished it. He missed the point of it. Maybe the editor used this reviewer knowing he or she would reject.  someone read the paper before I sent it  so I had feedback. I am waiting 15 months for a final decision on another article.
I have read so many papers, and some  I wonder how they got through peer review. Sometimes timing is very important at a journal. Same with books, even more so. Right now I am reading a theory of math book and author writes chapters on theology and art criticism that are irrelevant, totally.  Other books do no more than repeat well known material.

[the_geneticist]

Depending on your field of study, it can be common for an article to go through multiple rounds of revising & resubmitting.  If the paper was truly not suited for the journal, then the editor should have rejected it at the start.

But I did have a journal that sat on one one of my papers for 6+ months, sent it for review, got 2 positive reviews, and THEN decided it didn't fit in the scope of the journal.  Unprofessional? - yes.  Unkind? - no.  Weird? - for sure.

The unkind comments are the unprofessional rants and insults (e.g. the author is a complete idiot/why are you wasting my time with this drivel/I should have known better than to expect a woman to do stats/do you even speak English/etc.).  Those I'd flag and send to the editor for clarification.  And yes, I've had colleagues get those sort of horrible, unprofessional reviews.

[Vid]

Thank you again, everyone for your feedback. I am grateful for this group.

the_geneticist: I agree with you. some of the reviews are unprofessional. I submitted a first author paper 2 years ago in a top journal in my field and one review made some comments on my new modeling research and then at the end s/he called me "naive"! I felt really sorry for him/her.  I forgave him/her but it took sometime to heal!

[saramago]

Thank you again, everyone for your feedback. I am grateful for this group.

the_geneticist: I agree with you. some of the reviews are unprofessional. I submitted a first author paper 2 years ago in a top journal in my field and one review made some comments on my new modeling research and then at the end s/he called me "naive"! I felt really sorry for him/her. I forgave him/her but it took sometime to heal!

Seriously, OP, this is what people here are telling you to do your very, very best to avoid. If you need *healing* from that comment, it suggests that the next useful step in your professional development may be to learn to distance yourself. This is about one paper. Only one, and a paper, not your person. It does not matter in the grand scheme of things. It truly does not. My personal opinion is that the only way to become less sensitive to criticism pertaining to one paper is to submit lots of papers. All decent papers, but they don't all need to be outstanding. It is fine to submit a variety of papers to a variety of journals, some good, some excellent, some amazing. By doing that, eventually you will have received enough reviews that you will have NO recollection of any specific one, and certainly will not need to heal from any particular one. Instead, you will do what they do with figure skating at the olympics: discard the highest and lowest scores, and figure that the most accurate assessment of your work probably lies midway. Also, by submitting lots of paper, you will see that the outcome will vary dramatically, while you remain the same person. Thus, the only sensible conclusion is that the reviews say very little about you.

But back to your original question, the rejections I have despised the most in my career have systematically led to something better. My career would not be what it is today without those rejections that forced me to try something else. Thank God for rejections. So shrug it off and submit elsewhere. Not necessarily to a lower-tier journal.