I submitted a manuscript to a journal recently, and although their standard procedure involves two reviewers, I received feedback from three. While two of the reviewers provided positive feedback and suggested minimal or no changes, the third was notably critical. While I acknowledge and agree with some comments that could enhance the manuscript (though they don't represent significant shortcomings), certain remarks were either irrelevant or challenging to comprehend—potentially due to the reviewer's non-native English proficiency. Additionally, certain points he raised were already been addressed in the manuscript. That reviewer consistently labeled every section of the manuscript as “poor”, including the results section, which was carefully written following APA style guidelines, with a balance between statistics and descriptions to ensure readers neither felt overwhelmed by statistics nor missed key information. He recommended the rewriting of the manuscript and as a result, the editor has requested a revision. Is it common for reviewers to lack expertise in certain areas, leading to concerns that may not be considered constructive criticism? How much weight editors give to such comments in revision?
If the editor asked for another round of review based on the third reviewer's comment, you have to address the third reviewer's concern. It means that the positive comment of the first two reviewers no longer matter. Only the comment of the third reviewer matters. If you fail to address the concerns of the 3rd reviewer, the manuscript could be rejected. Good editors pay more attention to the negative comments than the positive comments.
I have been in a similar situation before. I had 2 positive reviews, and one negative review. The paper still got rejected. I really felt depressed, but later I got used to it. When this happens to you, you'd learn that the goal of peer review is to ensure that the scientific research in your manuscript is not perceived to contain bad research or inaccurate science, in the eyes of those who are conducting research in the same research area as you.
In my view, a lack of rewiewers may force an editor to send a manuscript to an academic professor who is an expert in a field or near a field but lacks an inside understanding of practical issues. E.g. A professor of economics asking to review a manuscript on Internal Control. Also, mood, stress and lack of current knowledge of a topic can affect review processes. Notwithstanding, a rejection or revision of a manuscript should be taken as an opener for further reading. However, a manuscript may be withdrawn and resubmitted to another journal entirely. The onus rest on editors to balance quality and quantity for the sustainability of journals.
A reviewer should have knowledge, experience and skills in their specialty and mastery preferably. The fact that you received a critical review means you need an objective review of that constructive criticism to rule out the bias you noted in order to preserve the integrity of your manuscript. The objective reviewer who is a subject matter expert should reveal enough information for you to answer your question. The fact that your manuscript has issues identified by a reviewer, whether real or not, an editor will want them addressed, and you should too even if only for QA. Open communication will be important.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia
- India