1. About
  2. Features
  3. Explore

I think I am in a very similar situation to this question, with the exception that my submission has been refused. I do not want to start a flame, but to me, one of the two reviewers didn't took the necessary time to do a proper review.

The first reviewer made a thorough summary of the paper, and explained in an extremely clear way what were his/her doubts and which parts were not strong enough. The second one looked like a baby plugging his hears and screaming "It stinks! It stinks!". He only attempted to make a point that resulted to be wrong since he was substantially criticizing how an algorithm works (Random Forests), even though it's empirically demonstrated to be effective.

Now, based on the constructive critiques of the first reviewer I refined the manuscript and attempting to submit to another journal. What I can't stand is the behaviour of the second reviewer.

Generally speaking, is the idea to respond to the editor about the bad (where bad is like in the linked question) review(er) a viable action, or should I just ignore all of this and go on?

1 Answer 1

Frustrating as it is, this is something that happens to many authors at some point, and the simplest solution is to shrug and move on. The editor probably already knows that the review is sub-par, and has decided to move on anyway. Arguing with the editor at this point is not just attacking the reviewer, it's attacking the editor's professional knowledge and judgement. It's not impossible to have a good outcome from responding, but it's unlikely. Even if you do get a positive response, the editor would simply send it out to a new set of reviewers, so even the best-case scenario has you starting all over anyway. Find a new journal and send it there.

That's assuming that the review is genuinely completely useless. From your description, I'm not convinced. The reviewer may be wrong, but it doesn't sound as if their process is completely wrong; there is a specific reason for the rejection, it is based on something in your paper, and the fact that there is empirical support doesn't seem like a strong argument in your favor. Before you resubmit to another journal, you should seriously consider how to deal with that issue.