What to do if your reviewer is wrong? (Or how do you respectfully push back against misguided comments?)
We have all received review packages where a reviewer offers a well-intentioned comment that reflects a dated or flawed understanding of the literature.
Some of my favorites revolve around common method bias.
* Have you considered running Harman's one-factor analysis (yes, it doesn't work).
* Have you considered running an unobserved latent marker variable (yes, it doesn't work).
I could go on ...
I won't.
While the comments are off-base, the reviewer offered them in the interest of improving my work, so they need to be treated seriously.
Before investing energy in deciding how to respond, ensure you understand the comment and its veracity.
If the comment is really misguided, what should you do?
Option One is to comply.
Do what the reviewer asked. This is the simplest solution - esp. if the solution doesn't change the paper.
But, complying with lousy advice can make you look like a fool - esp. when the reviewer suggests using a dated or inappropriate technique.
So ...
Option Two is to push back.
As a senior editor, I made the mistake of telling an author team to push back against the comments.
While pushing back wasn't a mistake, the authors pushed back too hard & turned off the entire review panel - including me.
I have nothing but regrets for the mess it caused - bc the authors remain angry at me & the associate editor likely suffers from editorial PTSD.
Option Three is to "respectfully" push back.
First, if the reviewer has misinterpreted the literature or your argument, politely explain the current state of the literature and how your worldview is consistent with recent work.
Second, it is important to note how your work builds on earlier conceptualizations so as to acknowledge that their comment was spot on at one point in time.
Third, offer evidence (hopefully analysis) demonstrating that your approach is reasonable. A well-reasoned explanation should accompany this.
In doing so, and this is important, you should never appear combative in tone with the reviewer.
Fourth, if you want to fight, don't. Ask for the editor's advice on how to respond to the specific concern. This is a polite way of signaling your concern that a reviewer is off-base and unreasonable. I
Finally, offer to include your explanation & analysis in the next iteration of the paper. That way, if the reviewer is not satisfied, you give them a polite opportunity to ask for more.
I recognize that it's not simple disagreeing with a reviewer; however, if you are respectful, offer an explanation, and signal a willingness to engage further, you are much more likely to receive a positive response.
Best of luck!
Comments