FAO: reviewer 2

Discussion in 'education & employment' started by mrs quoad, Mar 8, 2018.

  1. mrs quoad

    mrs quoad Well-Known Member





    (Only, we only get three reviewers in my field if we’ve *really* fucked up.)
    8ball likes this.
  2. mrs quoad

    mrs quoad Well-Known Member

    Reviewer 1: 'an almost flawless description of a qualitative study.'
    Reviewer 2: 'serious problems throughout, needs substantive revision.'

    [Amendments made.]

    Editor: decision to recommend substantive amendments. Would you like to chat about it?
    Me: well, yes. I find it really quite hard to negotiate reviews that are absolutely miles apart. It can feel as if I'm aiming for an invisible target. I did attempt to make significant progress towards addressing reviewer 2's concerns.
    Editor: oh, don't worry, hitting the target would have made no difference to my decision to ask for substantive amendments.


    Jesus fucking Christ.

    Two peer reviewers, who disagree completely. And - if I'm interpreting this reply correctly - a subsequent editorial decision that sees the content of the reviews as entirely irrelevant, and who has asked for substantive amendments on entirely separate grounds.


    At present, I have literally no idea wtf 'quality' is meant to mean in academic publications, or how 'peer review' is meant to somehow be providing robust guardianship of it.
  3. equationgirl

    equationgirl Respect my existence or expect my resistance

    Quality is so subjective, I think most of the time if you can address most of the comments and give reasoned arguments as to why the rest are irrelevant, generally it's fine.

    I feel your pain mrs quoad. Would withdrawing it from this journal and resubmitting it to another be an option?

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice