Since I am a very old researcher, I have some difficulties in updating my experience. When I publicly have defended my Ph.D. thesis in 1993, the main discussant made 13 questions that were all subjective and completely out of the research subject. I am a very polite person, thus I have replied" "thank you for your remarks, I will think about them in the future". This means that one always has two options: (a) to ignore artless comments; (b) to engage in discussion and polemic. In most of the cases, I have preferred (a) and kept (b) only for rare serious debates with very intelligent and real friendly colleagues.

Yes Hongxu Wei it is very frustrating, given the unpaid effort we put into the research that goes into writing the papers we submit. My approach is to have a list of several journal options so that if I cannot get into my preferred journal after reasonable feedback and re-writes, then I can resort to the next one on the list. Requesting more specific feedback is reasonable. I never put all my hopes into my one preferred journal, but always try to have a mental list of spares.

Thanks for discussing. Yes a list of spare journals can work, but for some research field where there are only a narrow range of journals can match the theme and scope of the study, the spares are not sufficient. In addition, it even sucks more when a scientific work is specifically prepared for some top-journals in the field.

You can contact the editor of the journal and ask for a constructive feedback.

Miguel Gil Thanks for replying but I am not confused about this issue that I just put forward for discussion.

Yes it sucks big time and I have also faced this in the past. My only advice is to ignore general subjective comments as it depends on the perspective of the reader at that point of time. Maybe you can ask the editor for further clarification. I would also advice (which i have done) is to keep multiple journal houses in mind and not focus on only one.

Keeping multiple journal houses may not be the solution because we very well know that we cant send an article to more than one journal at a time. What I suggest we do is to quietly seek for more explanation(s) or areas needing concentration or correction if the essence is not to reject the paper right at the inception. You may further report the issue to the editorial board of the journal of you suspect any foul play from a particular editor.

Good Luck

In my opinion, we should correct the objective remarks. Whichever we disagree with, we must prove the reasons why we disagree with it.

After many years of submitting articles, I have learned that you cannot win if you fight the reviewers. If their comments are subjective, you might assume that you have been unclear on the related parts of your paper -- thank the reviewer and clarify the point in a way that either incorporates the subjective comment or makes it superfluous.

Good luck on the writing and remember "that which does not kill you, makes you stronger".

Chris Wright Thanks so much for sharing your precious experience. I have got some similar lessons that to discuss with reviewers about their attitude and thought on submitted manuscript would probably cause the negative response by reviewer(s) and even the undesired result of submission. I agree that authors should give clear and comprehansive responses to every queries and comments made by the reviewer(s), which is the basic discipline that every researcher should obtains when worked as a author. There is no other choice to respond to reviewers about the scientific point, hypotheses, statistics, result description, discussion, and conclusion. However, I further thought that when a decision letter with strong opinion on the outcome with many subjective evaluation and decision on the manuscript with very weak or no reasons, it is the time to fight the reviewer with a full and wise reason is something that should have been encouraged. Current scientific corresponding system gives reviewers (or editors sometimes) too much power to decide the fate of a study. The submission system just gives yes or no options for reviewers to make a decision and to fill in the blank with any number of words will fulfill the system requirement if reviewer(s) chose refuse. The fear to fight reviewers will expand the academic bias if there were some made by a group of people and outcomes from the circle may have been narrowed by them. Probably no manager for big publication firms, such as Springer, Elsevier, MDPI, Tylor & Francis, would like to know their journals are suffering negative impression from author group due to fear to some reviewers who continuously comments on submitted papers with strong opinion but without enough scientific reasons. It is a progress that some submission system encourages to publish the reviewering comments and referees' information, like the one in PeerJ. Overall, if we took our career as a scientist serious enough we should not have any fears to fight the reviewers if we found our outcome has been treated unfairly by some reviewers. To fight reviewer(s) is not the purpose but to publish really scientific contributions is the mission of scientists.

Izolda Chiladze I strongly agree with you. However, sometimes some reviewer(s) do not give us to respond in details because they did not say anything specific to the scientific point but some negative comments and even critcisms instead.

We must focus on the aspects that should be improved in the article and obviate the unpleasant comments. From experience I know it is not easy, but I think it is the best we can do if we want our work to be published.

I will criticize the subjective comments of the article reviewer.

If you "...criticize the subjective comments of the article reviewer" you spit on not only the reviewer but also the editor who selected him/her -- good luck with that aggressive approach. You are much better off if you address the good and fair comments and then do what you can with the "subjective comments". Specifically, to the extent you can respond to them positively (e.g. make changes that relate) you should do so and where this is difficult, do what you can and divert the response to something positive and attribute it to the reviewer's comments -- Yes, it is very "passive : aggressive", but it works better than spitting on the reviewer and/or the editor.

If you don't listen to his comments your paper will be rejected.

Hongxu Wei, I admire your courage, but it is up to the editor to decide when a reviewer is being inappropriate -- I am on the editorial boards of 12 journals. If the editors do not do their jobs, it is time to try another journal and if the problem keeps reoccurring, if may be time to add another author to your paper to do workarounds in the troublesome areas. in some cases " The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars ... Men can be masters of their fate. It is not destiny's fault, but our own faults..."

Mohammed Ali Bait Ali Sulaiman Thanks for the advice. This is just a panel of disucssion. I do not have the issue at the moment.

I know you don't have the issue at the moment,but generally speaking if we don't listen to their comments our work will be rejected

Chris Wright Thanks very much for your further responses. It is grateful to know your personal details about scientific contributions. Yes, the issue of subjective comments from reviewers are aroused by the editor. An editor can decide the fate of paper by directly recommend the result of reviewing to EIC or took part in the reviewing process to supply comments. In some journal, I found that the editor who recommended subjective reviewers published papers from his/her/their own laboratory in an unordinary speed with poor value of scientific contributions. In some field, there is no way to find to many other alternative journals because population of scientists in the circle is very limited. Therefore, it is some editors that stop the scientific progress of scientific paper publication by recommending reviewers with subjective bias and this kind of comments would be easily accepted by the editor. I guess that, at your side, probably you have worked as an editor rather than an author for maybe some time. If yes, my words are delivered with no offence. Maybe the real things should be exposed to journal management departments that are happening from the issue of rejection by subjective bias of reviewers and editor. Managers of journal publication affairs in, e.g. Springer, Elsevier, Taylor&Francis, Wiley, MDPI, SAGE, Hindawi, Plos, MDPI, etc., may have not know this kind of things. To publish a paper or not is not big deal for the whole scientific area, but a regime with too much power in editor may matter a lot for many many scientists. At least, there should be a feedback by authors to inspect decision and comments from reviewers and editor. This is reasonable because authors are the main body that promote the development of science. It is horiible that authors are becoming vulnerable to subjective bias and dare not to say their sights just because that they are afraid of being rejected by the editor who supports the bias. I am sorry personally I do not have the concern of suffering from this issue, but I would like the current ecosystem of scientific publicaiton to be more fair to a wider range of scientists and researchers instead of a narrow and monopolic one that are controlled by a few people as editors and reviewers.

Mohammed Ali Bait Ali Sulaiman Thanks for replying. Yes, you are right that people would like to be satisfied but not fighted, including the editors and comments. However, I am arguing that this is not something about writing a novel or a sport comment, that, alternatively, be about the science that promotes the development of human society. To publish a paper or not may be not a big deal, but a terrible regime with too much power for editors and reviewers is a obstacle to hinder the movement of science. I know many professors and engineers are highly respected by the public due to their efforts and contributions to science and society. However, as soon as this group of highly honored experts turned to be some kind of monopolist how showed to sign to manipulate the paper outcome using unfair attitudes or even subjective sights without accepting any voices against them, maybe it is time to let the publication groups to know that the editorial board for some journals may need be changed. Currently, in this world, no one is not alternative. Thanks for reading. Welcome the further discussing.

You should do the comments and return the paper to the magazine. After all,if there reject it, you can send to a new journal.

We must rewrite and satisfy, clarify the comments

Every journal reviewer should be placed on the ambient of objectivity. They should be able to present a broad view of the important information the journal has addressed as well as what needs to be improved. Such, objective comment/s would give the researcher the direction for further adjustment.

It is always painful to receive negative feedback from academic work which you truly believed is relevant. There are however two sides the coin. Either the work is really bad and you need to do major revisions or it was submitted to a journal whose interests differ significantly with your work. In the case of the latter, doing what reviewers want by incorporating their views will help significantly. I have seen some published papers which were reviewed more than six times but authors did not lose hope. One can simply send the rejected manuscript to another journal and might be accepted.

Leana Esterhuyse Thanks for sharing your story. Yes this belongs to one kind of bias. I used to suffer once when I summarized tree seedling culture and set my aim to the open-air nurseries and stated the progress in my study. One reviewer asked me: why don't you set developed greenhouse system as your aim because it is very popular in developed countries. I replied, facing the challenges about the decline of submission, not every reader of the journal is from developed countries and people from the less developed or developing countries need to know what is new can they refer to for tree seedling culture.

This Link Maybe Useful:

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Objective_vs_Subjective

Izolda Chiladze Yes I agree because we are scientists or researchers who should take objects as resutls we collected to a higher place than just consideration of some relationship with others no matter who is editor or critic for a scientific journal or a comic magazine. It is horrible to know that the taxed money are being invested to some people because of his/her role as a professor or a researcher in an institution but he/she is playing a game called 'considering the relationship with the editor or reveiwer who may get back at the polite arguments that had opposite additude by declining the chance of publication'.

Don't get angry at negative comments. In many cases, after a reviewer's opinion on a major revision, a much better article is obtained. Another option is a more appropriate journal. The good article always finds a good place!

Please Go To This Link:

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Objective_vs_Subjective

I think I go with Mr Elsayed. Everything require some level of patience and perseverance especially when it comes to fact finding missions such as a research study.

We can send the paper to another Journal.

Another Solution is to write an answer on the reviewer comments supported with references.

Peer review is the heart of academic publishing and has long been instrumental in bringing good science to the forefront. Peer reviewer comments provide authors with valuable suggestions to improve their manuscript; thus, even a rejected manuscript with constructive reviewer comments is highly valuable. However, peer reviewer comments can sometimes be negative, rather than constructive, damaging authors’ motivation and confidence level. That's what the case with subjective comments. The best thing is don't get panic, hard work never goes unrewarded, two things modified your article or argue with reviewer's and if manuscript is rejected then submit to another journal, good work always find its place.