How do you handle conflicting reviewer comments?

How do you handle conflicting reviewer comments?

How to Deal with Conflicting Reviewer Comments

1. The role of the editor is key. The first thing to note is that divergent reviews should present a challenge to the editor rather than the author.
2. Consider the value of each review.
3. Seek guidance when necessary.
4. As author, you have the final say.
5. Author takeaways.

How do you handle reviewers comments?

Rule 7: Whenever possible, begin your response to each comment with a direct answer to the point being raised. You can provide background information, but you should do so after giving your primary response. Provide a “yes” or “no” answer whenever possible. When the reviewer is correct, state so in your response.

How do I deal with reviewer 2?

So, here’s a bit of practical and philosophical advice to help you work through a tough peer review.

1. Go ahead and vent—but be careful about where and how you do so.
2. Focus on problems, not solutions.
3. Clarify your vision.
4. Talk to your editor.

When should you reject paper?

9 Common Reasons for Rejection

• The manuscript fails the technical screening.
• The manuscript does not fall within the journal’s Aims and Scope.
• The research topic isn’t of great enough significance.
• The research is over-ambitious.
• A clear hypothesis hasn’t been established.
• The manuscript is incomplete.

What is a reviewer 2?

It is intended as a collegial, respectful enterprise, but the popular “Reviewer 2” meme in social media suggests that it often feels otherwise [1, 2]. Reviewer 2 symbolizes the peer reviewer who is rude, vague, smug, committed to pet issues, theories, and methodologies, and unwilling to treat the authors as peers.

What should you do if a reviewer comments on your paper?

Then get over it before you take any future action to revise your paper and respond to the reviewers. Poor judgment at this point will produce a poor outcome. Responding to reviewer comments in an argumentative fashion usually does nothing but polarize the opinion of editors and reviewers against you.

Who is responsible for confidential reviewer comments to editors?

It is the responsibility of the editor to call out reviewers on inconsistency between their Comments to Authors and confidential Comments to Editor and Recommendation. The editor should have contacted these reviewers and said, “Yo, fuckwit! What’s the fucking dealio with this shit?

What’s the role of the editor in a review?

The role of the editor and reviewers is unclear. Some state reviewers are like God, other encourage you to see the review process as a dialogue between reviewer and author. Some say the editor decides, others say the editor just harvests ‘acceptances’. I am sure editors also recognize this problem.

How to respond to a reviewer on a manuscript?

You should definitely address each of the reviewers individually as you respond to his or her comments, aiming for a layout that makes it absolutely clear which comment you are responding to at any given moment and exactly what you have changed in your manuscript.