You have months, maybe years, in the perfecting of your manuscript. You post it with great expectations, then you are told in a way that seems to be a gut-punch. Reviewer 1 loves it. Reviewer 2 appears to have read a different article though. They refer to your methodology as being flawed, your referrals as being outdated and their tone is biting to say the least.
This is not a new story at Fast Publications. We are a leading research consultancy firm dealing with researchers who have crossed the line between a “Major Revision” and a Final Acceptance. It is not only about technical corrections to deal with harsh or contradictory feedback, but also about strategic communication.
Should you not overcome these sharky waters of peer review, our Reviewer Comment Support offers the second pair of eyes that is the in-house expert that you require to ensure that your publication objectives do not get derailed.
Why “Reviewer 2” Happens
The reason is that in the academic world, Reviewer 2 is a meme. Peer review is also a human process and human beings carry along with them biases, varying schools of thought and on some occasions a bad mood to the table. The issue of contradictory feedback is most likely to emerge due to the fact that reviewers focus on other parts of a study. Reviewer 1 may take the theoretical contribution and Reviewer 2 is obsessed with the statistical detail.
The knowledge of this assists you in disassociating your self-worthiness with the criticism. It is not that you are upholding your own character; but you are perfecting a product of science.
Step 1: The 48-Hour Rule
The first reaction that you have when you read a very negative critique is your fight or flight reaction. The criticism is perceived as an individual attack on your brain.
One time through the comments, and close the file. Do not respond immediately. Allow yourself the time to work with the emotions at least 48 hours. On revisiting the document, you are supposed to look beyond the snark and find the signal. Even the most crude of critics sometimes has a point beneath their aggravation. Active voice is useful in this: You analyze the data; you do not allow the data to hamper you.
Step 2: Classify the Feedback
You should first sort the remarks into three before you write a single word of your rebuttal:
- The “Easy Wins: Small spelling mistakes, omissions, or formatting mistakes.
- The Real Work: The requests of new data, alternate statistical tests, or increased literature reviews.
- The “Contradictions” Where Reviewer 1 writes: spread this part and Reviewer 2: cut it.
Organizing gives you the chance to address the revisions in an orderly manner. It makes a mountain of criticism into a check list.
Step 3: Be a Professional in Your Armor
The response letter is no less important than the revised manuscript. It is at this stage that Reviewer Response Support comes in handy. You should have a respectful but firm tone.
- Bad: “The critic is obviously not a reader of page 10.
- Response: “We are grateful that the reviewer made this remark. To be more transparent with the methodology, we have explained this point on page 10.
You can save the face of the reviewer by making your response seem like you are simply clarifying and not correcting the reviewer on the issue of the review. This enhances the chances of a second round, which is smooth.
Step 4: Sorting out Contradictory Feedback
When the professionals are at odds, what do you do? This is the test of academic maturity.
Do not try to please everyone. It is impossible to take two conflicting instructions at the same time. Instead, look to the Editor. The Editor would often suggest in the cover letter to the reviewer that the researcher concurs with. If they are neutral, they will go in the direction which would give the best contribution towards the integrity of your research.
List the conflict in your response:
Whereas Reviewer 1 recommended that we elaborate on [Topic X], Reviewer 2 recommended being short. We have decided to give a brief overview in the main body; and to extend the tables to the Supplementary Materials to address both of these issues.
Step 5: When to Take a Stand
You need not support all the comments. A reviewer may request you to make a modification that would essentially harm your results or exceed what your research involves, in which case, you may reject it.
How can help be given by Fast Publications
This process is wearisome to go through all alone. The Fast Publications provide extensive Reviewer Response Support so that all your hard work does not stagnate in your Revision stage. Our team of specialist editors and professional editors will:
- Write and write your “Point-by-Point” response letters.
- Determine the revisions that need to make the most critical changes.
- Arbitrate conflicting feedback with tactical recommendations.
- Make sure that your tone is professional and convincing.
- We do not only assist you with publishing but do it in a better and simpler manner.
Conclusion
Criticism does not mean a dead end, it is a crossroad. By being professional and addressing Reviewer 2 with data-supported reasoning, you are showing that you are a professional researcher. Also keep in mind that the peer review process is aimed at improving your paper. Use the comments, even the hot stuff to polish up your arguments.
