Reviewers' comments terrify me

[drabs]

in a few instances, claims I did not consider specific pieces of scholarship that I used, cited, and have in the bibliography.

That's super-easy.  You just respond saying "We added a consideration of those specific pieces of scholarship at places X, Y, and Z", and allow the reviewer to (wrongly) assume you're implying that happened chronologically after they wrote their review. ;)

Above all, I always to respond with something that sounds like "I totally agree with the reviewer, and have remedied the situation", even when that's not really an accurate description of the situation.

[Puget]

I just submitted a manuscript to a journal that has an "interactive review forum". The idea is that you can go back and forth with the reviewers. This will require a change in the usual process of thinking about and responding to their comments. That process is the one Aside and Puget describe above.

Any suggestions on preparing for this interactive forum?

I've been on both the author and reviewer sides of this system a number of times now, and aside from the rounds of review generally going faster and not having to wait on the editor (which is nice), it's really not any different than the usual process in practice. The original idea may have been for it to be more informal/interactive but people are comfortable with the old model and basically have replicated that in my experience-- i.e., you write the same sort of cover letter response you usually would and paste it into the forum. It does give you a chance to ask for clarification on a reviewer point if necessary before making manuscript revisions, which can be helpful. Otherwise same old same old.

[Hibush]

I just submitted a manuscript to a journal that has an "interactive review forum". The idea is that you can go back and forth with the reviewers. This will require a change in the usual process of thinking about and responding to their comments. That process is the one Aside and Puget describe above.

Any suggestions on preparing for this interactive forum?

I've been on both the author and reviewer sides of this system a number of times now, and aside from the rounds of review generally going faster and not having to wait on the editor (which is nice), it's really not any different than the usual process in practice. The original idea may have been for it to be more informal/interactive but people are comfortable with the old model and basically have replicated that in my experience-- i.e., you write the same sort of cover letter response you usually would and paste it into the forum. It does give you a chance to ask for clarification on a reviewer point if necessary before making manuscript revisions, which can be helpful. Otherwise same old same old.

Thanks for the answer from experience.

I'm glad to hear that a lot of the old paradigms are still in place. I'm still going to have to think differently about--that idiot--reviewer #2. Perhaps the chance to get clarification will change that dynamic somewhat.

[Myword]

Another thought--you don't read your critical reviews--delete them unread.
They will annoy you and in my situation, many comments are useless, nit picky. Every reviewer has their own biases positive and negative but we do not know what they are. I suspect that if you and I knew this, we would realize that we cannot take some comments seriously. Some critics in my field look for any excuse or reason to criticize and rewrite.  Example.If the author you are discussing says that all human actions in the world are self centered and you say this includes Chinese, the critic could state that the author did not mention the Chinese. This is a petty dumb remark. I get a lot of these.

[Puget]

Another thought--you don't read your critical reviews--delete them unread.
They will annoy you and in my situation, many comments are useless, nit picky. Every reviewer has their own biases positive and negative but we do not know what they are. I suspect that if you and I knew this, we would realize that we cannot take some comments seriously. Some critics in my field look for any excuse or reason to criticize and rewrite.  Example.If the author you are discussing says that all human actions in the world are self centered and you say this includes Chinese, the critic could state that the author did not mention the Chinese. This is a petty dumb remark. I get a lot of these.

Huh? I think you may have misunderstood the topic here-- this is not about reviews someone publishes of your book, it's about peer review. If you get an R&R on a journal article you can't delete reviewer comments unread-- you need to address each one in your cover letter and revision.

[adel9216]

I feel you. My first article ever was rejected by the first journal I have submitted to. I am actively working on addressing the comments and resubmit it to another journal. I would need feedback prior to submitting, however, I feel like everyone I know including other graduate students, supervisors and professors are busy...However, I know having feedback would help me to get published. How typical is it to ask people to read our work-in-progress research paper for free?

[aside]

How typical is it to ask people to read our work-in-progress research paper for free?

In my experience, it is not uncommon.  I am often asked to read my colleagues' work before submission.  I've never expected to be paid, though some folks will take you to lunch or give a small gift.  Most have just offered to read something of mine in return.

[glowdart]

I feel you. My first article ever was rejected by the first journal I have submitted to. I am actively working on addressing the comments and resubmit it to another journal. I would need feedback prior to submitting, however, I feel like everyone I know including other graduate students, supervisors and professors are busy...However, I know having feedback would help me to get published. How typical is it to ask people to read our work-in-progress research paper for free?

It is very common in my world. I still exchange paper drafts with grad school friends, and then I have a professional writing circle that does draft exchanges too. Do you have people you can build a circle with or otherwise just ask?

[pedanticromantic]

I am at the point where I don't get mad anymore when the reviewers are idiots or have an agenda that they are acting out. I just look at what stupid hoops I have to jump through to get the prize, and continue. The more I do this the more I don't care - it's really all just a game.

100%

In all my years of research... over 100 papers, 7 books... I think I got one all-positive review. You just let it go and move forward. Make the changes they want to see then move on. Don't take it personally.

[ergative]

Another thought--you don't read your critical reviews--delete them unread.
They will annoy you and in my situation, many comments are useless, nit picky. Every reviewer has their own biases positive and negative but we do not know what they are. I suspect that if you and I knew this, we would realize that we cannot take some comments seriously. Some critics in my field look for any excuse or reason to criticize and rewrite.  Example.If the author you are discussing says that all human actions in the world are self centered and you say this includes Chinese, the critic could state that the author did not mention the Chinese. This is a petty dumb remark. I get a lot of these.

I have one pretty gruesome review on a grant proposal. (Two reviews came back 'good'--about right, I think: it was mediocre for various reasons, including time constraints--but one was a straight-out 'poor'.) I still can't bear to read that 'poor' review, and I think I may never get around to it.

[octoprof]

I am at the point where I don't get mad anymore when the reviewers are idiots or have an agenda that they are acting out. I just look at what stupid hoops I have to jump through to get the prize, and continue. The more I do this the more I don't care - it's really all just a game.

It's (probably) not personal. It's (probably) just what they think/know/wish/ate last might. Take it with a grain (or a truckload) of salt and do what you can to get the article published.

It's just part of the job. I have received scathing reviews and I have written them. It's just part of our scientific (and sometimes not so scientific) process for furthering knowledge.

[youllneverwalkalone]

I just submitted a manuscript to a journal that has an "interactive review forum". The idea is that you can go back and forth with the reviewers. This will require a change in the usual process of thinking about and responding to their comments. That process is the one Aside and Puget describe above.

Any suggestions on preparing for this interactive forum?

Assuming you are talking about Frontiers? I have been using their system pretty much the old fashioned way, like preparing reply to each reviewers' point and pasting it in there. But basically I have waited until I had done all the revisions and all the replies to submit anything so I did not really take advantage of the potential "interactivity".

[Hibush]

I just submitted a manuscript to a journal that has an "interactive review forum". The idea is that you can go back and forth with the reviewers. This will require a change in the usual process of thinking about and responding to their comments. That process is the one Aside and Puget describe above.

Any suggestions on preparing for this interactive forum?

Assuming you are talking about Frontiers? I have been using their system pretty much the old fashioned way, like preparing reply to each reviewers' point and pasting it in there. But basically I have waited until I had done all the revisions and all the replies to submit anything so I did not really take advantage of the potential "interactivity".

Can you tell from the reviewers comments whether they are expecting interactivity? Or are they behaving like "old-style" reviewers?  This format means that htey could ask an open-ended question rather than saying that a particular statement was wrong.

[youllneverwalkalone]

I just submitted a manuscript to a journal that has an "interactive review forum". The idea is that you can go back and forth with the reviewers. This will require a change in the usual process of thinking about and responding to their comments. That process is the one Aside and Puget describe above.

Any suggestions on preparing for this interactive forum?

Assuming you are talking about Frontiers? I have been using their system pretty much the old fashioned way, like preparing reply to each reviewers' point and pasting it in there. But basically I have waited until I had done all the revisions and all the replies to submit anything so I did not really take advantage of the potential "interactivity".

Can you tell from the reviewers comments whether they are expecting interactivity? Or are they behaving like "old-style" reviewers?  This format means that htey could ask an open-ended question rather than saying that a particular statement was wrong.

From the tenor of the comments they pretty much look like "old-style" in my experience, which I guess makes sense seeing that most reviewers (and most journals) use the traditional peer-review model.

In my understanding the interactivity from the author part means you could in theory submit separate replies as you go along, rather than waiting to have all your replies and submitting them all at once (which is what I did). On the other hand I could see their replies in real time rather than waiting for both of them to finish, and for the editor to send me a decision letter. For example, when one reviewer accepts the paper ("endorse publication" in the Frontiers parlance) you can see that right away, so you can get that cool "hell yeah, one down!" feeling without having to wait for the editor to write the usual letter to say that "Dear author, after one round of review reviewer 1 is satisfied, while reviewer 2 is still being a whining little b*tch. Please find their comments below".

[risenanew]

At the beginning of my career I also used to take reviewer's criticism pretty defensively. Now with plenty of publishing and reviewing experiencing I am way more dispassionate about it.

I am hoping to get that thick of a skin eventually. As it is, I'm waiting on tender-hooks to hear back from a pretty good journal (impact factor > 1.5, which is higher than any other journal I've published in) that I've already sent two previous manuscripts to. I'm basically sending them the third draft of a manuscript based on my dissertation and trying not to cringe at what remarks may come!