Recently, I was asked how to handle a truculent Reviewer 2 - who continues to you to add references, methods, & more to your paper.
We have all encountered one, who seems to feel they, more than the Editor who offers the revision, is in charge of the review process.
Such reviewers are difficult.
Sometimes, they have a point - they simply do not believe in the paper.
Sometimes, they are proving a point - that they have power over authors.
Sometimes, they are pointless - they are angry that they have been mistreated by another Reviewer Two.
It is particularly frustrating when Reviewer 2 is the final person who needs to sign off on the paper - who is peppering you with requests to cite their work, further revise the motivation or request additional analysis.
It is frustrating because there isn't much you can do about that person - it's up to the Editor to decide if you must continue to listen to them.
When asked how to manage Reviewer Two, I counseled patience.
What does that mean?
First, it means letting yourself feel emotions when you receive a difficult review.
It's ok to feel angry, frustrated, or disappointed.
Feel them, manage them, & redirect that energy to addressing the comments.
Second, do not give up.
You are still in the game.
You have a revision - major or minor.
If you have a major, the Editor sees value in the reviewer's comments.
If you can not identify how to address a comment, send the Editor a focused email asking for advice.
If you have a minor revision, the Editor still sees values in those comments but thinks they are addressable.
Third, seek advice.
If you are lost, because you need help understanding a comment, talk to your co-authors.
Often, I find that talking through an issue helps solves it.
If the team can't sort it out, send a polite, level note to the Editor.
Often, an editor will review the comments & provide some direction.
Note: the outcome will depend on how well you respond to direction.
Fourth, respond.
After updating the paper, write a response. Make sure that you explain why you did or did not do something.
Maybe you could not address a concern - so you should include a request as a limitation.
Perhaps, you need help seeing how a reference fits - so you ask for more direction from the reviewer. (Please note that you should include a few references they suggest).
You have to respond.
Fifth, ask for a quality check.
BC, you are likely still angry, have a colleague read it.
Have them look at the changes that you made. It need not take long.
You simply want to be sure the tone is proper.
Finally, resubmit the paper.
If you have made a good faith effort to address reviewer concerns, 9 out of 10 times, the reviewer will relent.
If not, the Editor will resolve it, esp. if the concerns are specious.
If you are rejected, take solace in knowing you did your best.
And move on to the next journal.
Life is short, don't waste time being angry.
Comentários