great answers, interesting topic prof Nasser Said Gomaa Abdelrasheed

I do not do it

Dear Dr. Rasha Shakir Nima

Thank you very much for your answer.

Best regards

It happened to me on my last paper with second reviewer. I accepted a few minor changes for which I conluded won't influence the cohesion, aim and the meaning of the paper(some technicalities), but rejected every major intervention and wrote a letter to reviewer 2 explaning (backed with strong arguments) why I did or did not accept certain changes. Luckily reviewer 2 came around and my paper was published without losing integrity. Otherwise, I would have withdrawn the paper and submit it to another publisher.

Dear Katarina

Very very nice. I happened with me one time and i did some reviewer comment and 2 points i did not make it. I have argued why i did not make it and it was accpeted. I was lucky because the editor understand me arguments.

Best regards

When I am convinced that my work does not need changes, I will not do the opposite, and I will change the publisher if necessary.

Dear Karima Souna

Thank you for your valuable answer.

Best regards

To try to kindly comply with all changes suggested by a reviewer could be seen as a week point on your side, especially when it affects the structure, demonstration and conclusions of your paper. Could give the impression that your paper is not good, not a good impression about you. The problem in some disciplines and areas is the small milieu. Even when reviews are double blind, we know who is the author. And reversely, we know who is the reviewer.

I'm afraid this is often a symptom of power imbalance. If you are well established and are the sort of person who has journals asking them to submit papers then you can easily refuse to make such changes. Unfortunately, if you are much lower ranked academically than the reviewer then if for career reasons you need to publish in that journal you have to give in and make the changes demanded.

Karima Souna well I agree that this is the ideal response, it again depends on the academic level of the author. In a small milieu an early career researcher or one from a less prestigious institution/independent scholar can find their reputation blackened by an influential reviewer who discovers that rather than follow their instructions to make changes the author has 'wilfully' disregarded them and submitted to another journal.

Dont listen

Dear Anne Regourd

Thank you a lot for your reply. Nice contribution.

Best regards

Dear Dr. Timothy Edward Jones

Thank you a lot for your reply. Nice contribution.

Best regards

Dear dr. Suhad Mohammed

Thanks a lot. Best regards

The reviewers SUGGEST changes that they think could improve your work. You can accept suggestions or you can not accept them. If you don't accept, you should explain the reasons. The final decision to publish yuor work is under the responsibility of the editors. If the editors refuse to publish without amendments suggested by the reviewers but refused by you, you should search for a different editor / periodical.

This problem happened to me quite often. If required changes are not fundamental, I usually followed suggestions. In few cases I refused to adjust my work: sometimes the editor accepted my opinion, only in a very small number of cases (perhaps 1 or 2), it has been necessary to look for a different editor.

Fabio Carminati

I too have had similar experiences. However, in only one case have I been able to convince the editor that the suggested change would be too fundamental a departure from my intended meaning and still been published.

In general in my field of Archaeology/History they are not suggestions they are requirements. Unfortunately the peer reviewer can make these for varied reasons ranging from a desire to improve your presentation, through professional jealousy meaning they actually want to prevent your paper being published, to a violent dislike of a person you are referencing. I've had all these.

Which returns me to my above point, which is that it depends on how necessary it is for an academic to publish in the chosen manner. In my case, due to age and disability I'm no longer reliant on Impact Assessments for my career so can hawk my wares around so to speak and take the moral high ground. If I was a struggling post doc/early career researcher dependent on making the next assessment board to continue in employment then I would have to behave differently.

Of course being aware of the international nature of Research Gate it is possible that my experiences and therefore my advice are specific to the UK situation and may not be relevant elsewhere.

@Timothy

My field is the same. I understand very well what you mean. The same happens in Italy. Fortunately, like you, I don't have an academic/university career to defend. ;-)

Dear dr. Fabio Carminati

I agree with you.

It is good Idea. Very useful contribution.

Best Regards

Dear Dr. Timothy Edward Jones

Thank you very much for your contribution

Best Regards

I will accept satisfied suggestions if they not can not accept them.

Ignore it!

It is always useful to have fresh eyes on your work. Good suggestions can come from strange places. However, never be nasty. Even if a reviewer hates the work, there is no reason to be sarcastic. Only the author knows exactly what went into the work. A nasty review serves little purpose.

Thank you Dr. Dhifaf Zeki for your contribution

best Regards

Dear Dr. Karlene Jones-Bley

Thank you for your contribution

Best regards

Dear Dr. Thomas Lennartz

Thank you very much for your contribution.

Best regards

https://www.quora.com/What-should-I-do-if-I-find-a-reviewers-comment-to-be-irrelevant-irrational-derogatory-and-based-on-false-statements

https://www.editage.com/insights/how-to-respond-to-comments-by-peer-reviewers

I think that suggestions are important, but as much important is who does it. No work is perfect, but it is necessary to look for it. The main thing, if possible, is to understand the different points of view and find out a solution by a deeper research. Usually is not an easy situation, but I think that it is important to hold the helm steady. If I have an idea based on reliable sources, I defend it, with a large explanation. Anyhow I have to assume my responsibility.

Dear Dr. Giuliano Masola

I agree with your opinion.

Thank you very much for your contribution.

Best regards

Yes , i agree . So we should choose the specialized journal before manuscript submission . but the problem mostly happen if unspecialized journal or mauscript involving many specialities .

Dear Nasser Said Gomaa Abdelrasheed, in principle I agree with the opinion of Giuliano Masola. However, I would like to detail how it is necessary to analyze and respond to any referees' objections, criticisms, and comments. First of all, it should be stressed that any serious referee must motivate and detail all his judgments. The author or authors must answer:

1) accepting all or part of the criticism;

or

2) rejecting all or part of the criticism.

In any case it is always necessary to motivate why the objections of the referees are accepted or rejected.

Furthermore, in case the author or authors reject some criticism/objection they must not only motivate thoroughly but also demonstrate why the criticism/objection is unfounded. For all these reasons, the process by referees review is also called "peer review". If the "peer review" process reaches a univocal and shared conclusion, the work will be published. Since the primary interest of paid journals is to publish as much as possible, almost all of these journals warmly recommend to referees to adopt a collaborative and constructive attitude with the authors. My personal opinion is that collaborative and constructive attitudes between referees and authors, if the authors are ethically correct, i.e. they do not lie knowing that they are lying, as unfortunately sometimes happens, can only be beneficial for scientific growth.

Dear Dr. Mohamed Laimoud

Thank you for your valuable contribution

Dear dr. Leonardo Cannizzaro

Thank you for your valuable answer

Dear dr. Rabin Thapa

I appreciate your contribution ansd i Strongly agree with that.

Best Regards

Dear dr. Sovit Parajuli

I agree with your opinion. It is very useful.

Best Regards

I agree Sovit Parajuli

Dear dr. Gunel T. Imanova

Thank you very very much for your contribution.

Best regards

great answers, interesting topic prof Nasser Said Gomaa Abdelrasheed

Actually, I discuss him and try to make him convinced about my point of view from a scientific point, and most likely he is convinced of that, and if it happens at one time he is not convinced, I try to make slight changes as much as possible, that is, I dodged to make changes that I am not convinced of.

Well it can be annoying sometimes.

But I use make my aurgment by using established literature and review and through a rebutalable letter to the editor.

But if they are two reviewers I will also seek the thought of the next reviewer on the subject matter

Try to adapt creatively.

Try to convince with rationality.

Relevant question. Often, we tend to be put off by 'irrational' comments. But if we can patiently think that this was constructive criticism aimed at improving the manuscript quality and point out the relevance / rationale in a convincing manner, things might turn out better. The response to the comments need not be subdued nor aggressive, but a firm answer, if possible supported by literature would be the best way to tackle.

Dear Nasser Said Gomaa Abdelrasheed If I am keen on publishing in that journal for any reason (reputation, standard , worldwide circulation ...etc) and the changes are not substantial then I would agree to make them.

Thank you for this great question Dr.

I believe that every single comment given by the reviewer aims to support the article and improves the quality of the article. However, it is important to discuss these changes with the reviewer and try to convince him/her with your point of view.

I accept it with gratitude, especially if the comments are improving the quality of research. Also, Sometimes the notes are outside the research framework, as it will not help.This happened to me several days ago.

Regards

Dear Dr. Solaiman R. S. Elsheikh

Thank you very very much for your contribution.

I appreciate your participation.

Best Regards

Dear Dr. Manal Hadi Kanaan

Thank you very very much for your contribution. I aree with you that "Actually, I discuss him and try to make him convinced about my point of view from a scientific point, and most likely he is convinced of that, and if it happens at one time he is not convinced, I try to make slight changes as much as possible, that is, I dodged to make changes that I am not convinced of."

Best Regards

Dear Dr. Onwe Joshua Chukwuma

Thank you very very much for your useful contribution.

I appreciate your contribution

Good answer

Well it can be annoying sometimes. But I use make my aurgment by using established literature and review and through a rebutalable letter to the editor.

Dear dr. Stephen I. Ternyik

I appreciate your contribution. I agree with your opinion that sometimes i should try to adapt creatively.

Best regards

Dear Dr. Agnishwar Girigoswami

I am grateful for your contribution. I agree with you that sometimes i should

Try to convince with rationality.

Best regards

Dear Dr. Krishna Kumar Govindarajan

I am grateful for your useful contribution. I agree with your opinion that "Relevant question. Often, we tend to be put off by 'irrational' comments. But if we can patiently think that this was constructive criticism aimed at improving the manuscript quality and point out the relevance / rationale in a convincing manner, things might turn out better. The response to the comments need not be subdued nor aggressive, but a firm answer, if possible supported by literature would be the best way to tackle."

Best regards

Dear dr. Ahmed Ali Khammash

I appreciate your contribution.

Dear Nasser Said Gomaa Abdelrasheed If I am keen on publishing in that journal for any reason (reputation, standard , worldwide circulation ...etc) and the changes are not substantial then I would agree to make them.

Best regards

Dear Dr. Omar Farouk Al Mashhour a

Thank you very very much for your useful contribution. I agree with you that " I believe that every single comment given by the reviewer aims to support the article and improves the quality of the article. However, it is important to discuss these changes with the reviewer and try to convince him/her with your point of view."

Best Regards

Dear Dr. Mundher Alsaaidi منذر السعيدي

thatnk you very very much for your contribution. I am agree with your opinion that "I accept it with gratitude, especially if the comments are improving the quality of research. Also, Sometimes the notes are outside the research framework, as it will not help.This happened to me several days ago."

Best Regards

Review comments are always meant to make our manuscripts better. I never view review comments as irrational. All that is required is work on them and make the manuscript better. Or better still, send it to another journal after working on suggested reviews

I will give suitable rebuttal. Because reviewing process is not like one way traffic. It is a two way approach. We can defend for our ideas what we put in our manuscript. When the reviewer asked us to do some irrational let's give suitable rebuttal in polite way. There is no prob at all I guess.

Review comments are expected to be constructive and objective criticism for or against manuscripts. You have the prerogative to object to any recommended changes you consider irrational or aberration to the objective of your research work. The worst case scenario of the editor's response is to reject publishing it in their journal; you may withdraw and submit it to another Journal for possible publication

I have come across reports of many reputable researchers who refused to make certain changes recommended by reviewers and rather withdrew their manuscripts and publish in another Journals

Very interesting topic

Usually, I answer to the rational questions and comments, I tu to make all the logic corrections. For the irrational questions and comments I write a cover letter to the editor and I answer to the rewievers by defending my ideas and work using references.

If you and your co-authors are convinced that the recommended updates by the reviewer are irrational or deviation from the objective of the paper, you can write to the editor explaining why you will not effect the reviewer comments and recommendations

From the scientific view and in accordance with field and work ethics, editors usually ask for a substantial modification only if it is required to consolidate the research to achieve its maximum potential. As a researcher you should understand these changed is not intended to underestimate your work and efforts rather than it meant to increase its scientific impact. However, there is a big difference between giving constructive feedback and given a destructive feedback, where in the first one you intend to deliver your message positively highlighting the strengths of the work and its impact on the field then raising the

necessity of doing some changes in order to improve the paper or the work quality. You, as researcher, if you disagree with the reviewer suggestions, you have the right to explaine your point of view and why you think this might irrelevant to your work providing the evidence clearly. If your paper acceptance is dependent on making these changes, then you can try with a different journal and if you ended up with similar suggestions, then you might need to reconsider making these changes or you have to keep trying.

Sir as u said that is by luck

Nasser Said Gomaa Abdelrasheed

Dear Researcher,

This is a great question that you have raised. Generally, reviewing is thought to be a very difficult and important job. In god journals, articles are reviewed by professional reviewers. They have the training and experience to do so. So in such journals you will most of the time not experience something like what you have done.

However, in some journals, which are not up to the mark, you can come across experiences like this. You may try to explain the matter and then convince the concerned authority. In my personal life, I have seen that such explanations and convincing usually do not work. So it is better to look for other options in that case.

Thank you.

Best regards,

Anamitra.

When I experienced such a situation, I replied to the suggestion with emphasis that such changes is far beyond the aim of the present study under review and it would be considered as an extension. I appreciated the Reviewer for such an insightful suggestion.

In addition, I called the attention of the Academic Editor and Editor-in-Chief to such development.

In addition to my first submission, it would not be fair to use weighty words because of such a recommendation/suggestions from the Reviewer. More so, rejection of a paper is not a bad thing to me! It tells me to revise the paper and send it again to another Journal.

Its better to withdraw the research manuscript from the journal and send to a different journal, than to compromise your research ideas and findings to get it wrongly published.

Usually I write a cover letter, with my response to the review comments. I understand this sometimes comes from a reviewer wanting their work cited, but it is a little easier with mega journals because you put forth your defense that shows why your paper shldnt be altered. Otherwise, some reviewers can resist until you defeat them