Responding to a possibly biased peer reviewer

TruthSeeker

Illuminator
TruthSeeker
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Messages
3,587
Some time ago, I submitted a systematic review to a peer reviewed journal. Aspects of it were discussed in this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72476

Well, the reviewer's comments have arrived (just one reviewer, which is odd). The editor has expressed interest in publishing the paper if I can resubmit within a month.

The review is odd for a few reasons:
1. She begins by revealing her identity. Not surprisingly, she is the author of one of the papers included in the review.

2. She incorrectly summarizes the question asked and the conclusion drawn in the systematic review.

3. She writes that she is no longer current with the literature in this field

4. She tells me that I can explain the (incorrect) conclusion by reference to her [later and unrelated] work since 2000. She provides citations to her own work which I can use to recraft my discussion. :jaw-dropp

5. She says it is inaccurate to say her earlier paper did not use a particular technique

6. Similarly, she says it is inaccurate to say they didn't do something in their earlier work, because they addressed this in later work.

OK, so, she can't take criticism and she's trying to get citations to her more recent work.

Should I write to the editor and ask that he send it to a less biased reviewer? Or, do I suck it up and simply revise and resubmit? Or do I write to the editor saying I will make a few changes based on her least biased comments but will not make my paper into a vehicle to promote her work in an unrelated field?

Other options?

Thanks! :)
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker said:
Well, the reviewer's comments have arrived (just one reviewer, which is odd). The editor has expressed interest in publishing the paper if I can resubmit within a month.
Click to expand...

Well, "suck it up and deal" is almost always good advice, unfortunately.

But "revise and resubmit" simply means that you have to ADDRESS the reviewer's concerns, not
necessarily agree with them. If the reviewer is inaccurate, a simple cover letter to the editor
is usually sufficient for that purpose.

Specifically.



The review is odd for a few reasons:
1. She begins by revealing her identity. Not surprisingly, she is the author of one of the papers included in the review.

2. She incorrectly summarizes the question asked and the conclusion drawn in the systematic review.
Click to expand...

Dear Dr. Editor: With regard to the review, I fear that Dr. Bigwig's summary may be somewhat
inaccurate, and that some of her comments are therefore should not need to be addressed
in detail within the paper itself. In particular,....


3. She writes that she is no longer current with the literature in this field ///
Click to expand...

.... Her domments, although understandable in light of her change of focus over the past
decade, may take the paper too far afield,....


4. She tells me that I can explain the (incorrect) conclusion by reference to her [later and unrelated] work
Click to expand...

The newer applications, although interesting, are not relevant, especially in a survey of results over the past fifteen years.


5. She says it is inaccurate to say her [earlier] paper did not use [a particular technique]
Click to expand...

.... we feel that the statement that Dr. Bigwig's paper did not use this technique is
accurate and do not wish to misrepresent the actual analysis she performed

6. Similarly, she says it is inaccurate to say they didn't [do something in their later work, because they addressed this in later work.]
Click to expand...

... and her newer results, although possibly useful as a model, are again not directly relevant.

Other options?
Click to expand...

Basically, play the "relevance" card.
 
Last edited:
My advice: none of these extremely specific details in the OP are necessary background for folks to give an informed opinion on your situation. Change them all to anonymize yourself, if you haven't already.
 
Dr Kitten, thank you. I will probably use your response as a model for my letter. I appreciate this. I felt such relief after posting this thread that I realize I really needed to vent this so that I could see it objectively. I spent most of my afternoon in unproductive fuming!

Dave, I used to have the illusion that I was anonymous on this board. I've learned better. I don't think the details in this particular post give me away, but I'll see if I can edit them. Or were you concerned about the editor or reviewer recognizing themselves?

ETA: Dave, I've reread my OP and noted Dr Kitten's quotes, and really don't think there is much point in editing. I appreciate your concern however. I have just had to accept that I am very easy to find on the internet.
 
Last edited:
Drkitten's comments seem to strike pretty much the right tone. Either the editor is an idiot (in which case you're screwed no matter what), or they'll be able to read between the lines regarding the reviewer. It's perfectly possible to leave the impression that the reviewer is an ignorant fool while being courteous and professional in your response. In other words, you don't say, "She doesn't know what she's talking about," you say "we disagree with the reviewer because blah blah blah". Never get personal, and NEVER impugn the motives of the reviewer (such as suggesting that they want added references to boost their citation count): either the editor can figure that stuff out themselves (in which case they won't be impressed that you think they need to be told the obvious), or they'll think you're just looking for excuses. Your objective is not to demonstrate her shortcomings, but only your own mastery of the topic. If the reviewer asks for a substantive change and you think there's good reason not to change it, all the editor should need is a solid explanation as to why not.
 
TruthSeeker said:
ETA: Dave, I've reread my OP and noted Dr Kitten's quotes, and really don't think there is much point in editing. I appreciate your concern however. I have just had to accept that I am very easy to find on the internet.
Click to expand...

FWIW, I just cleaned mine up, so you can clean yours up too if you like. Ask one of the mods to help if you need/want it.
 
"We thank the referee for her insightful comments, and respond in detail below.

1. The referee is concerned that blah blah. We agree that this is an important area of research, but feel that this is beyond the scope of the current review.

[repeat comment 1 as many times as necessary]

We trust that our review is now suitable for publication."

Works for me!
 
I will add one thing: don't blow the comments off completely. It's better to make some concessions, so that you can show the editor that you are taking the reviewer's comments seriously. If there are comments that are clearly mistaken, you can make the case but I encourage you to take them seriously. It often feels that reviewer's comments are biased or missing the point, and while it could be true, it could also reflect the fact that you haven't made the point sufficiently clear.

Thus, even if you think the reviewer is missing the point, make some changes that allow you to say, "We have tried to clarify that point in the paper so to make it more clear for the reader."
 
Was it a lengthy turn around time? Maybe this lady wasn't the ed's first choice, but the other reviewers balked (is that a word?).

I'd rather kiss reviewer ass and get another pub than fight the good fight!

Sounds like you have it handled, but I would not mention the word bias anywhere. Incompetent reviews happen all the time; just handle em professionally (the editor likely realizes the review sucked, given it was negative, but he still said resubmit). So, thanking the reviewer for insightful comments is a great start. You can then explain why you didn't make the changes thereafter:)
 
Thanks, James. I usually add something about the reviewers suggestions have improved the quality of our manuscript ;)

pg, I definitely see your point. I will re-evaluate in a couple of days in regards to what can be made clearer and which of her points are worth adopting. Thanks.
 
Sometimes, you're just sunk. Our group had a paper get torpedoed when two of the reviewers were from a different area and were totally uninterested (possibly why you have only one reviewer here?) and the third had their own pet ideas they wanted to push into the paper even though they were irrelevant. We tried to address the concerns without adding in the gratuitous references and were rejected. My advice is take the other excellent advice on style, kiss the submission goodbye right now, and go buy your favourite tipple. Start planning on resubmitting elsewhere if you have the luxury of more than one decent venue.

I'm not bitter.
 
I know who and where you are! At least, while you are at work. :)

PS. Where's those pics from 18 mths ago??
 
Zep, oh my! I never resent them :boggled: I'm sorry. I will!

Folly, ouch. I'd be bitter too. I'm not sure why there was only one reviewer - perhaps because it is an understudied field (which I suppose is a nice way of saying nobody cares). We will definitely resubmit, and there are lots of other journals.

I feel better about the whole thing today. I was so angry yesterday :mad:
 
UPDATE:

I made some minimal revisions and wrote a response letter largely modeled on the suggestions I received in this thread.

The paper is now in press!

Thanks everyone. Much appreciated.
 
Bit late, but I always think this sort of thing is worth a try...

"One perplexing problem was dealing with suggestions #13-28 by reviewer B. As you may recall (that is, if you even bother reading the reviews before composing your decision letter), that reviewer listed 16 works the he/she felt we should cite in this paper. These were on a variety of different topics, none of which had any relevance to our work that we could see. Indeed, one was an essay on the Spanish-American War from a high school literary magazine. The only common thread was that all 16 were by the same author, presumably someone reviewer B greatly admires and feels should be more widely cited. To handle this, we have modified the introduction and added, after the review of relevant literature, a subsection entitled "Review of Irrelevant Literature" that discusses these articles and also duly addresses some of the more asinine suggestions by other reviewers."

http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/revision.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom