We submitted a manuscript in Jan and got a list of revisions from 3 reviewers in Feb. Reviewer 3 was particularly rude (calling the paper “cookie cutter”, among other things). We were polite and addressed ALL the requested experiments (even ones that seemed irrelevant).
We just got back the responses from the journal. Reviewer 1 & 2 have accepted the manuscript, but Reviewer 3 is now asking for a new additional experiment, which is particularly involved and is not feasible for us at this time. It is also completely irrelevant to the conclusions of the paper. The Editor has asked us to address Reviewer 3’s comment (seemingly agreeing with the Reviewer’s request? ).
How do you respond to an intransigent reviewer, when you are unable to provide the requested data (which is also irrelevant/not very informative/out of scope)? How do you write a polite but concise rebuttal? How do you plead with the Editor and try to convince him/her that the reviewer’s request is not feasible/tenable?
I was thinking of adding their suggestion in the future work section. Reviewer 3 has been a hard ass the entire process, so I’m not sure he will go for this. But maybe the Editor can be convinced?
Any advice ?
Comments
Hey.
You always may address reviewer issues by explicite disagreement with them. You need to tell them why their modifications are unrelated and not necessary for this study, and just reject to do them. That’s simple.
Following to know about this too
Adding the request into future work is a good idea. I would also craft a thoughtful email to the editor stating your position that you don’t feel this would add to the conclusion and is beyond the scope of the current project, adding a consideration of time and money. See what the editor suggests. They may agree with you and publish w the additional minor edits.
I would just say something like, we appreciate all the feedback. However, additional experiments are outside the scope of this research, though we will take the recommendations under consideration for future projects.
Don’t give in. It’s bad juju on R3’s part. You can write a polite letter to the editor saying why you will not do a new experiment. The "future work" idea is good. Betcha the editor goes for it.
But if not, take all your free feedback and move on. A submission is a dress rehearsal of what the paper can be. When there are conflicts, you decide what’s going in the final performance, not the editor.
I don’t think that the editor necessarily agrees with their comments by asking you to revise. The reviewer asked for additional stuff in which the editor has to send back to you for a response. This response can be an affirmation or simply telling them that what they’re asking for isn’t possible.
You know your experiment more than anyone else. If you truly don’t find their suggestions relevant OR if it can’t be produced in time, then you can simply tell the reviewer that it’s not relevant/can’t be done.
You can explicitly acknowledge their request either as a future recommendation or a limitation to the study (if it is). You should probably also inform the editor in the cover letter that their suggestion can’t be done. You already have 2 acceptances and I highly doubt that the editor will reject it if reviewer 3 goes insane and rejects it.
Just because reviewers request something doesn’t make it a requirement. I would state that the additional experiment is not feasible, add a limitation / future direction consistent with the reviewer’s comment for another experiment, offer that the experiment is a good idea in the response letter, and state how the additional experiment experiment isn’t necessary for your study to make a contribution
Also, editors are fallible. A lot of them simply take the reviewer comments and say address them without much individual investigation (they don’t have time). I’ve gotten an article rejected due to bad reviews, I emailed the editor citing how the reviewer comments weren’t problematic and explained why – turned into an accepted with minor revisions. Don’t always email the editor when something goes wrong but recognize that editors have a really tough and time consuming job so they have to make cuts somewhere
You can always ask the editor for additional advice. They might be able to clarify what their concerns are and what type of response they had in mind. Editors are often happy to discuss further.
I have had a similar issue where I assumed the editor was in agreement with the reviewer. Turns out they were not – they were fine with a throw away limitation sentence. So, I say go with a future direction throw away line and respond to the reviewer stating that it is beyond the scope of the current study.
We really need training on what reviewers roles are because this type of reviewer pops up far too often.
No advice but I’m interested in the answers from others as well!
You could acknowledge the validity of Reviewer 3’s suggestions while asserting that you don’t think they’re necessary and are out of scope, as others here have mentioned.
Something like:
“We thank R3 for their suggestion to . While we agree that doing would further confirm that , we believe that our results already demonstrate and such time- and resource-intensive experiments would not substantially change the conclusions reached from the results already presented in this manuscript. Thus, we are happy to include a discussion of such experiments in our discussion of future work in the ___ section of the manuscript.”
Thanks so much to everyone for the great advice!
You don’t need to comply or agree with all the comments. Justify your choice of not doing the experiment with good arguments and you should be fine
My advice as a long-time reviewer and well published scientist. Always be polite and praise reviewers. Don’t fight with them. The editors are the ones you need to satisfy. If there are good reasons to not do something that is not feasible for you to do, just explain politely to the editor.
Hmmmm. I worked as an editorial assistant. I wouldn’t read into the editor asking you to address reviewer 3’s comment. Sometimes we would do that because the reviewer is being annoying in the comments that are just to the editor (so you wouldn’t be privy to), and we know that you need to address their review or else they will be annoying again. Sometimes we would do it because it wasn’t our area of expertise and a reviewer raised a question that we can’t adequately form an opinion on. Just argue respectfully. Explain why it wouldn’t make sense. Remind them of the narrow focus of this work.
I have “respectfully disagreed”, in those words, with reviewers before, and given detailed reasons why. All those papers got published.
The request to respond to the reviewer’s comments does not signify agreement by the editor. Just make your case and argue your position with respect. Then if you feel compelled to alter the paper, you can cite the ideas in the "Future Research" part of the Discussion and speak of it being "beyond your current scope"; a magic phrase that works in many situations.
The associate editor should have put a foot down at this point.
I’d reach out to the editor and ask them what you should do.
Many reasonable answers already, but you could also go with:
> We know who you are and we know where you live
Reviewers offersuggestions and opinions: the final decision and responsibility rest with the authors and the editor
Say you are looking forward to doing the experiment in a future paper but it’s not feasible now. Then just never do it. That’s what I do.