Reader's Voluminous Report: Send to Different Journal?

[Wahoo Redux]

Heyyo, this is maybe a pointless question (maybe even more of a mild mini-rant) but has anyone received a reader's report that calls for such voluminous revisions that you simply rerouted the article to a new journal rather than trying to meet the reader's 'demands?'

I've published with this journal before, and I like the people.  And I would hate to start over after receiving a revise-and-resubmit.  But the reader in this case----while the reader is extremely knowledgeable and a lot of hu's insights are worthwhile and interesting----is really having me write an article that hu would have written.

I've always thought that readers' reports made my writing much, much better (even when rejected) but, geeze, if I did everything the said reader suggested I would almost have a several book chapters...or something...I'd have, like, LOTS of stuff, too much for an article-length piece.  I am afraid it would take forever if I followed every suggestion-----so I just don't think I can.

Anyway, I was just wondering. I don't think I have the cajones to blow off an R&R and wait out another peer-review at someplace new.  I will just suck it up and do the best I can. 

I'll have to include a note specifying what I answered and what I didn't and why (previous advice on the Fora, BTW).  Argh.

Any thoughts?

[mamselle]

Not my own, but another's advice (probably not surprising, but it's my go-to):

1/ Answer everything you don't fix with a respectful, reasoned reply of why not, usually indicating issues of scope and focus as the reason, and with thanks for the care they took in making their suggestions. Do so point-by-point, so they know you took it seriously and read it all the way through.

2/ Fix everything you can as fast as you can and with the least amount of messing with your text. Include that in the point-by-point response, in order, so they won't miss it or say you didn't heed it.

3/ Turn it around as quickly as possible and boomerang it back once done.

This guy turned a complex piece around in a week with two grad RAs' help; I never saw a chunk of writing fly around an office (via the computers, of course) so fast.

M.

[mleok]

I also tend to add potentially interesting and important new avenues that a referee suggests to the future directions/work section of the paper, as a way of acknowledging that these are worthwhile things to pursue, but also conveying that they are beyond the scope of the current paper.

[Wahoo Redux]

Ooooh yeah, those are great ideas.  Thank you. I will definitely follow.  Keep them cards and letters coming!

[Parasaurolophus]

I second everything mamselle said. I'd expect it to get rejected and so be ready to send it somewhere else, but I'd at least try to get the R&R first, and just change what I think is worth changing and, for the rest, thank the referee for the great ideas but explain that they lie outside the scope of the present paper.

[jerseyjay]

As I have written on another thread, I am facing this situation now.

My advice: First, take a deep breath, take some time, and then get back to the reviews. Often, the revisions required are not as serious as they appear. Frequently, they point to things I have written that are confused or confusing, and can be cleared up with better prose. ("I appreciate the reader's comments that the article's advocacy of cannibalism was problematic. Since I do not, in fact, advocate eating children, this misconception seems to flow from weaknesses in my prose, which I have sought to clarify in the revisions.")

If the advice is interesting but would require writing another article ("The way that the author dealt with peasant attitudes in France during the Revolution is interesting, but would be much stronger by also dealing with peasant attitudes in Russia in 1917-18"; "The author's points about Martin Luther are fascinating, but the author should also take into account the controversy around the Second Vatican Council") I often say so in my reply. ("The reviewer's comments on the need to consult sources in Latin are well-taken, but since this is about the Ming dynasty, such research would seem to lie outside the article's scope. I will, however, keep it in mind for future research.")

That being said, I have spoken to some people who treat an R&R as a rejection, and never resubmit. On the other hand, my default is the opposite--unless I just think the revisions are off the wall.

[mleok]

I should also add that it's ultimately up to the editor to decide if the referee's requests are reasonable, although I do realize that many editors abdicate that responsibility and simply parrot the referee's demands. One can sometimes get a sense of the editor's expectations based on whether it is characterized as "minor revisions" vs. "major revisions," and the time limit given to you. My most recent paper had a second referee report which requested rather substantial revisions, but the editor marked the paper as requiring "minor revisions" and only gave a month to respond, which to me suggests that I'm not really expected to make all the requested changes.

[mleok]

That being said, I have spoken to some people who treat an R&R as a rejection, and never resubmit.

How these people ever publish anything in a journal with high standards?

[Parasaurolophus]

That being said, I have spoken to some people who treat an R&R as a rejection, and never resubmit.

How these people ever publish anything in a journal with high standards?

Maybe acceptance rates in their discipline are high?

[Sun_Worshiper]

In the major journals in my field, I'd estimate that ~70% of R&Rs get accepted, whereas the acceptance rate for initial submissions is single digits. So you have much better odds turning around an R&R, even a difficult one, than you do starting from scratch with fresh reviewers (or perhaps the same difficult reviewer, if you have bad luck).

And remember, you don't have to make all of the requested revisions, as long as you have a good reason not to.

This is good advice as well:

I also tend to add potentially interesting and important new avenues that a referee suggests to the future directions/work section of the paper, as a way of acknowledging that these are worthwhile things to pursue, but also conveying that they are beyond the scope of the current paper.

[Sun_Worshiper]

That being said, I have spoken to some people who treat an R&R as a rejection, and never resubmit.

I've never seen an article accepted without at least one R&R along the way. Often papers go through 3 or 4 rounds of revision at a journal before being accepted.

[Hibush]

It's possible that the editor thought the reader's comments were overlong. If so they may share that view in a phone call, and help identify the relative priority of the points raised.

[Ruralguy]

My personal tendency is to just bite the bullet and go with what the reviewers say. But I'm a full prof at a place that only cares that I "keep up" with scholarship, not publish multiple articles in high quality journals per year, which could be difficult if you go with *everything*, and especially if the journal mentions a deadline for reply.  Which isn't to say I don't publish in high quality journals. I do, and that's why I listen to the R&R's. Life sucks for a while when the re-write becomes your side hustle, but you do it.

In any case, yes, explain everything point by point, whether or not you are adhering to their advice. Be polite to a fault. Thank the reviewers for their enlightening points, etc.. 

[Wahoo Redux]

Thank you all for your advice.  Great stuff.

Onward I guess!!!

[mleok]

I think a reasonable approach is to address the issues which are within the original scope of the paper, and the ones which you feel would improve the paper and you're willing to do, and politely decline to do the ones that would dramatically expand the scope of the paper. One also needs to calibrate this based on how high the journal standards are. I told one of my students that if we did all the things which the second referee mentioned in his report, then it would be too good to be published in the journal which we had submitted the paper to (we only submitted there because there was a special issue celebrating the 25th anniversary of our subfield), and it should be submitted to the leading journal in the field instead.