Addressing Divided Reviews While Staying Positive and Focused

[Dr_Badger]

In early Fall, I submitted an article on a controversial topic to a prestigious, top-tier journal in my field. The reviews came back today. Reviewer 1 offered strong praise for the article and Reviewer 2 recommended rejection. Both reviewers offered formative feedback for revision, and the editor delivered a Revise & Resubmit decision.

In short, I am going to be doing a lot of revising in the coming months. I understand the editor's decision and the path forward, but this is my first time taking a leap of faith and doing major revisions for a divided review. I'm hoping someone will pop in and tell me about a time when their article was ultimately published after one reviewer recommended rejection. That way, I can come back and look at your anecdote(s) when I'm feeling overwhelmed. 

More context: I am a tenured person, so my job is not at stake. I am invested in publishing this piece in this particular journal. I am also prone to doubting my own intrinsic capabilities when I should instead be adopting a growth mindset. Also, the co-author is my spouse. 

[fleabite]

I was in just this situation early this year. The revisions meant that the article would double in length, and it had already been a major project. In fact, I could have turned it into a book with a couple more months' work. I have a little regret that I didn't. I was swayed by feeling that I owed something to the reviewers and editor of the journal, as they had put in the time to give the feedback, so I was reluctant to pull it and make a book of it instead. In any event, I did make the revisions, the article was accepted, and it will appear in the spring.

The thing to remember is that the editor wants to be able to publish a piece if he/she has offered you the opportunity to revise & resubmit. Just follow the advice you have received, and you should be in good shape. Maybe you and spouse could encourage each other? You could each be responsible for coming up with a motivating thought to start the work with on alternating days—the grander and more extravagant the better.

[Dr_Badger]

Fleabite, I LOVE the idea of a daily motivating thought! Tomorrow's thought will be, "Honey, by the end of this revision, we'll both qualify for 2nd PhDs in methodology!"

[fleabite]

Fleabite, I LOVE the idea of a daily motivating thought! Tomorrow's thought will be, "Honey, by the end of this revision, we'll both qualify for 2nd PhDs in methodology!"

I think we have different ideas of what constitutes a motivating thought! :)

[larryc]

You know who has a lot of experience with exactly this situation? Your editor. She sent you a revised and resubmit because she wants to publish you. Give her a call, talk it out.

[Hegemony]

I have never had an article in which both reviewers were positive.  That is why there are so many memes about Reviewer #2. My favorite is this one:

https://twitter.com/philosophymttrs/status/1056432895907295232

In my own experience, sometimes reviewer #2 was harsh but allowed for the possibility of revision; sometimes reviewer #2 thought the article was unsalvageable; sometimes reviewer #2 thought I should never have been allowed access to a keyboard.  When reviewer #1 was positive, which was usually, I always was asked for an R&R, and all of those have been published except one I never got around to.  So I think the answer is that this is par for the course. You will be strengthening your determination muscles by powering on through. 

Another thing to remember is that you don't have to do everything grumpy reviewer #2 suggests.  Follow the suggestions that make sense to you; for the rest, the editor generally just wants to hear a reasoned argument as to why that direction would actually be unfruitful or not in accordance with the scope of the article or whatever. They want a persuasive reason to ignore reviewer #2. So don't twist yourself into knots trying to change every single thing reviewer #2 didn't like; keep an eye on the overall shape and sense of the piece, and revise accordingly.

[Dr_Badger]

Just popping back in to say thank you all for the responses to my post! I'm considering all of the excellent advice posted here, and I'll revisit this thread down the road and let you know the outcome. 

[youllneverwalkalone]

In short, I am going to be doing a lot of revising in the coming months. I understand the editor's decision and the path forward, but this is my first time taking a leap of faith and doing major revisions for a divided review. I'm hoping someone will pop in and tell me about a time when their article was ultimately published after one reviewer recommended rejection. That way, I can come back and look at your anecdote(s) when I'm feeling overwhelmed.

Having a divided review is the norm rather than the exception, although to be that divided is rare. This has happened to me a couple of times at least, among others with my very first paper. I managed to get it accepted eventually, though the reviewer who was opposed to it couldn't be convinced after a few rounds of revisions so the editor brought in a third reviewer who suggested accepting the paper with minor revisions.

Generally speaking, I regard R&R as money in the bank. I have almost exclusively been rejected during the first round of revision (which were mostly desk rejections), but whenever I was invited to R&R I did eventually get the paper accepted.

[Dr_Badger]

I hope everyone is holding up OK in these weird times. Since people rarely return to threads to share the outcome of a professional dilemma, I wanted to pop back in and let you know that this article is now in press after 2 rounds of revision at the journal that returned the divided reviews. Thanks, everyone for your advice! Without you, I might have withdrawn the manuscript -- which would have been a misguided decision.

Happy writing and revising! - Dr. B

[Volhiker78]

Congratulations.  Sounds like a good learning experience. A colleague once gave me good advice regarding manuscript revisions.  He said, "It's not dead until the editor says it's dead. Unless you have a fundamental issue issue with what the editor wants,  keep revising." 

[Parasaurolophus]

I hope everyone is holding up OK in these weird times. Since people rarely return to threads to share the outcome of a professional dilemma, I wanted to pop back in and let you know that this article is now in press after 2 rounds of revision at the journal that returned the divided reviews. Thanks, everyone for your advice! Without you, I might have withdrawn the manuscript -- which would have been a misguided decision.

Happy writing and revising! - Dr. B

Excellent work, and congratulations! And thanks for updating!

[youllneverwalkalone]

Excellent, congrats Dr. B.

[mamselle]

Very helpful takeaways, thanks to others for vicarious encouragement here (I have a couple articles that have been around the bend a few times...!)

Many thanks for this image:

You will be strengthening your determination muscles by powering on through.

And for this one:

He said, "It's not dead until the editor says it's dead. Unless you have a fundamental issue issue with what the editor wants,  keep revising."

It's especially useful to have very specific guidelines if (as was my case) the lack of input and support from presumed mentors, who should have been providing it in my program, was deafening.

M.

[fleabite]

Congratulations, Dr. Badger!