Thus revise the paper as best as you can, addressing as much criticism as reasonably possible (i.e., stay true to your assessment of reality and do not change your claims just because the reviewer wants you to). It may very well be that the editor just wants you to respond to possible minor criticisms from this reviewer and give some argument that your choice of data was valid. Moreover, if the journal accepts many publications using this database, the editor should be very worried if he is convinced by the reviewer’s criticism of the database. Regarding your particular case: If the negative review had fully convinced the editor that it is impossible or very unlikely that you salvage your paper, they would have rejected it, which they obviously didn’t. In addition, if the authors convincingly address a reviewer’s critique, this will also go into the decision. Of course, reality is more complex, but you can assume that editors put less value in reviews that show little effort from the reviewer’s side, resort to questionable arguments or seem entirely unbalanced in their assessment. The editor would just blacklist the reviewer and request another one. I recommend to reject this paper because of fish. In an extreme example, you do not need to fear that your paper is rejected due to a review saying nothing but: The one deciding upon the acceptance or rejection of your paper is the editor, not the reviewers. I've also read that if a paper gets a "full reject" recommendation from even one reviewer, the probability of it being accepted is basically zero regardless of what the other reviewers say. While I feel like we can respond to the comments, it doesn't look like the second reviewer would be convinced regardless of what we respond if he believes that database is invalid. The editor gave the paper a "major revision" decision. Overall though, they were very disparaging of the paper in almost every possible way because of that.
The second reviewer's concerns were basically that he believes that one of the databases used in the paper (which is used in many other studies published in this journal) is completely invalid, but to back up their claim they posted links to a bunch of blog articles.
MARCH NETWORKS EVIDENCE REVIEWER FULL
One had some minor comments and recommended minor revisions, while the second reviewer recommended full rejection and was very vehement about it.
I recently received reviews on a paper that I submitted to an Elsevier journal, with 2 reviewers.
0 kommentar(er)
