How to resolve: Reviewer #1 says remove section X vs. Reviewer #2 says expand section X
I am experiencing conflicting reviews with my manuscript that recently received its reviews. The reviewer #1 wants me to delete the analysis X for the clarity and focus of my MS, while reviewer #2 wants me to further discuss the results of analysis X, as it appears to be interesting for him/her. Both comments have important points. Reviewer #1 will make the MS short and clear, while reviewer #2 will make the MS longer and open more discussions.
publications peer-review review-articles
edited Mar 10 at 6:53
corey979
4,27052233
asked Mar 10 at 3:00
xavierxavier
774423
|
show 1 more comment
I am experiencing conflicting reviews with my manuscript that recently received its reviews. The reviewer #1 wants me to delete the analysis X for the clarity and focus of my MS, while reviewer #2 wants me to further discuss the results of analysis X, as it appears to be interesting for him/her. Both comments have important points. Reviewer #1 will make the MS short and clear, while reviewer #2 will make the MS longer and open more discussions.
publications peer-review review-articles
edited Mar 10 at 6:53
corey979
4,27052233
asked Mar 10 at 3:00
xavierxavier
774423
1
What did the editor say?
– Allure
Mar 10 at 3:10
4
Possible duplicate of How to effectively address conflicting suggestions from reviewers
– darij grinberg
Mar 10 at 3:51
2
Would the paper lose anything by moving an extended discussion into SI and referring readers to it?
– anonymous
Mar 10 at 5:18
1
My apologies for editing your question, but I dropped #2 and #3 to #1 and #2, generalized, the title, and mentioned original reviewer #1 just at the end since they're not a party to the relevant question...
– virmaior
Mar 10 at 5:41
3
It’s your paper, not the editor’s or the reviewer’s. What do you think is best?
– Thomas
Mar 10 at 8:08
|
show 1 more comment
I am experiencing conflicting reviews with my manuscript that recently received its reviews. The reviewer #1 wants me to delete the analysis X for the clarity and focus of my MS, while reviewer #2 wants me to further discuss the results of analysis X, as it appears to be interesting for him/her. Both comments have important points. Reviewer #1 will make the MS short and clear, while reviewer #2 will make the MS longer and open more discussions.
publications peer-review review-articles
edited Mar 10 at 6:53
corey979
4,27052233
asked Mar 10 at 3:00
xavierxavier
774423
I am experiencing conflicting reviews with my manuscript that recently received its reviews. The reviewer #1 wants me to delete the analysis X for the clarity and focus of my MS, while reviewer #2 wants me to further discuss the results of analysis X, as it appears to be interesting for him/her. Both comments have important points. Reviewer #1 will make the MS short and clear, while reviewer #2 will make the MS longer and open more discussions.
publications peer-review review-articles
publications peer-review review-articles
edited Mar 10 at 6:53
corey979
4,27052233
asked Mar 10 at 3:00
xavierxavier
774423
edited Mar 10 at 6:53
corey979
4,27052233
asked Mar 10 at 3:00
xavierxavier
774423
edited Mar 10 at 6:53
corey979
4,27052233
edited Mar 10 at 6:53
corey979
4,27052233
edited Mar 10 at 6:53
corey979
4,27052233
4,27052233
asked Mar 10 at 3:00
xavierxavier
774423
asked Mar 10 at 3:00
xavierxavier
774423
asked Mar 10 at 3:00
xavierxavier
774423
774423
1
What did the editor say?
– Allure
Mar 10 at 3:10
4
Possible duplicate of How to effectively address conflicting suggestions from reviewers
– darij grinberg
Mar 10 at 3:51
2
Would the paper lose anything by moving an extended discussion into SI and referring readers to it?
– anonymous
Mar 10 at 5:18
1
My apologies for editing your question, but I dropped #2 and #3 to #1 and #2, generalized, the title, and mentioned original reviewer #1 just at the end since they're not a party to the relevant question...
– virmaior
Mar 10 at 5:41
3
It’s your paper, not the editor’s or the reviewer’s. What do you think is best?
– Thomas
Mar 10 at 8:08
|
show 1 more comment
1
What did the editor say?
– Allure
Mar 10 at 3:10
4
Possible duplicate of How to effectively address conflicting suggestions from reviewers
– darij grinberg
Mar 10 at 3:51
2
Would the paper lose anything by moving an extended discussion into SI and referring readers to it?
– anonymous
Mar 10 at 5:18
1
My apologies for editing your question, but I dropped #2 and #3 to #1 and #2, generalized, the title, and mentioned original reviewer #1 just at the end since they're not a party to the relevant question...
– virmaior
Mar 10 at 5:41
3
It’s your paper, not the editor’s or the reviewer’s. What do you think is best?
– Thomas
Mar 10 at 8:08
1
1
What did the editor say?
– Allure
Mar 10 at 3:10
What did the editor say?
– Allure
Mar 10 at 3:10
4
4
Possible duplicate of How to effectively address conflicting suggestions from reviewers
– darij grinberg
Mar 10 at 3:51
Possible duplicate of How to effectively address conflicting suggestions from reviewers
– darij grinberg
Mar 10 at 3:51
2
2
Would the paper lose anything by moving an extended discussion into SI and referring readers to it?
– anonymous
Mar 10 at 5:18
Would the paper lose anything by moving an extended discussion into SI and referring readers to it?
– anonymous
Mar 10 at 5:18
1
1
My apologies for editing your question, but I dropped #2 and #3 to #1 and #2, generalized, the title, and mentioned original reviewer #1 just at the end since they're not a party to the relevant question...
– virmaior
Mar 10 at 5:41
My apologies for editing your question, but I dropped #2 and #3 to #1 and #2, generalized, the title, and mentioned original reviewer #1 just at the end since they're not a party to the relevant question...
– virmaior
Mar 10 at 5:41
3
3
It’s your paper, not the editor’s or the reviewer’s. What do you think is best?
– Thomas
Mar 10 at 8:08
It’s your paper, not the editor’s or the reviewer’s. What do you think is best?
– Thomas
Mar 10 at 8:08
|
show 1 more comment
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
What this means to me is that Section X needs to be revised.
Reviewer #1 is pointing out that section X is not well-motivated as it stands -- because they can't figure out it's relation
Reviewer #2 is pointing out that section X is not good enough as it stands -- because it doesn't address relevant issues about X.
Thus, the two are not necessarily opposite. Reviewer #1 is telling you that you need to better explain why X is as state if you want to include it. Reviewer #2 is saying you need to better address what is at stake in X but recognizes X is significant.
When I get this sort of review, I rewrite that section to make very clear why discussing X matters to the paper (thus addressing Reviewer #1) and try to improve and focus my arguments so that it really answers the objections raised related to X (thus addressing Reviewer #2).
I'm in philosophy, so maybe this advice doesn't apply to your field.
answered Mar 10 at 5:40
virmaiorvirmaior
4,66411235
6
I'd certainly apply the principle of "if you're going to explain it, explain it properly" in physics
– Chris H
Mar 10 at 21:07
add a comment |
Although this seems like you are stuck between Scylla and Charybis it isn't that bad. It is annoying that the editor is unhelpful, but they are often non-committal in these situations.
Remember that when you send your resubmission with a response to the reviews, each reviewer will see the other's comments. So, in your response, include a section titled "Consideration of reviewers #1 & #2 comments about Analysis X". Explain that both reviewers had good points. And after careful consideration you have decided to do ... whatever you decide.
Depending on the journal / field, one option is to move an expanded version of the analysis (satisfying #2) to the supplement (satisfying #1). If supplement is not available, you can at least put that analysis into a subsection, clearly titled, so that readers (and #1) can more easily skim/skip that subsection without disturbing the overall flow.
I always lean toward including more rather than less, so I would probably end up saying something to #1 like "Based on the thoughtful remarks from reviewer #1, we realized that we failed to clearly explain analysis X, since we, and reviewer #2 both think it is important. As such, we have re-written this section emphasizing how it contributes to our main conclusions."
I have never heard of a reviewer rejecting a paper because an extra analysis was included. If the paper is too long after being accepted, the editor will ask you to trim it down and that can be another opportunity to move things to supplement/appendices.
edited Mar 10 at 5:37
virmaior
4,66411235
answered Mar 10 at 3:57
jerlichjerlich
45326
2
+1 for "lean toward including more rather than less". Gone are (or should be) the days where physical pages were precious and deliberately opaque writing was preciouser.
– Greg Martin
Mar 10 at 9:10
+1 for recommending remarks on the value of both reviews.
– Ethan Bolker
Mar 10 at 21:37
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "415"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f126224%2fhow-to-resolve-reviewer-1-says-remove-section-x-vs-reviewer-2-says-expand-se%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
What this means to me is that Section X needs to be revised.
Reviewer #1 is pointing out that section X is not well-motivated as it stands -- because they can't figure out it's relation
Reviewer #2 is pointing out that section X is not good enough as it stands -- because it doesn't address relevant issues about X.
Thus, the two are not necessarily opposite. Reviewer #1 is telling you that you need to better explain why X is as state if you want to include it. Reviewer #2 is saying you need to better address what is at stake in X but recognizes X is significant.
When I get this sort of review, I rewrite that section to make very clear why discussing X matters to the paper (thus addressing Reviewer #1) and try to improve and focus my arguments so that it really answers the objections raised related to X (thus addressing Reviewer #2).
I'm in philosophy, so maybe this advice doesn't apply to your field.
answered Mar 10 at 5:40
virmaiorvirmaior
4,66411235
6
I'd certainly apply the principle of "if you're going to explain it, explain it properly" in physics
– Chris H
Mar 10 at 21:07
add a comment |
What this means to me is that Section X needs to be revised.
Reviewer #1 is pointing out that section X is not well-motivated as it stands -- because they can't figure out it's relation
Reviewer #2 is pointing out that section X is not good enough as it stands -- because it doesn't address relevant issues about X.
Thus, the two are not necessarily opposite. Reviewer #1 is telling you that you need to better explain why X is as state if you want to include it. Reviewer #2 is saying you need to better address what is at stake in X but recognizes X is significant.
When I get this sort of review, I rewrite that section to make very clear why discussing X matters to the paper (thus addressing Reviewer #1) and try to improve and focus my arguments so that it really answers the objections raised related to X (thus addressing Reviewer #2).
I'm in philosophy, so maybe this advice doesn't apply to your field.
answered Mar 10 at 5:40
virmaiorvirmaior
4,66411235
6
I'd certainly apply the principle of "if you're going to explain it, explain it properly" in physics
– Chris H
Mar 10 at 21:07
add a comment |
What this means to me is that Section X needs to be revised.
Reviewer #1 is pointing out that section X is not well-motivated as it stands -- because they can't figure out it's relation
Reviewer #2 is pointing out that section X is not good enough as it stands -- because it doesn't address relevant issues about X.
Thus, the two are not necessarily opposite. Reviewer #1 is telling you that you need to better explain why X is as state if you want to include it. Reviewer #2 is saying you need to better address what is at stake in X but recognizes X is significant.
When I get this sort of review, I rewrite that section to make very clear why discussing X matters to the paper (thus addressing Reviewer #1) and try to improve and focus my arguments so that it really answers the objections raised related to X (thus addressing Reviewer #2).
I'm in philosophy, so maybe this advice doesn't apply to your field.
answered Mar 10 at 5:40
virmaiorvirmaior
4,66411235
What this means to me is that Section X needs to be revised.
Reviewer #1 is pointing out that section X is not well-motivated as it stands -- because they can't figure out it's relation
Reviewer #2 is pointing out that section X is not good enough as it stands -- because it doesn't address relevant issues about X.
Thus, the two are not necessarily opposite. Reviewer #1 is telling you that you need to better explain why X is as state if you want to include it. Reviewer #2 is saying you need to better address what is at stake in X but recognizes X is significant.
When I get this sort of review, I rewrite that section to make very clear why discussing X matters to the paper (thus addressing Reviewer #1) and try to improve and focus my arguments so that it really answers the objections raised related to X (thus addressing Reviewer #2).
I'm in philosophy, so maybe this advice doesn't apply to your field.
answered Mar 10 at 5:40
virmaiorvirmaior
4,66411235
answered Mar 10 at 5:40
virmaiorvirmaior
4,66411235
answered Mar 10 at 5:40
virmaiorvirmaior
4,66411235
answered Mar 10 at 5:40
virmaiorvirmaior
4,66411235
4,66411235
6
I'd certainly apply the principle of "if you're going to explain it, explain it properly" in physics
– Chris H
Mar 10 at 21:07
add a comment |
6
I'd certainly apply the principle of "if you're going to explain it, explain it properly" in physics
– Chris H
Mar 10 at 21:07
6
6
I'd certainly apply the principle of "if you're going to explain it, explain it properly" in physics
– Chris H
Mar 10 at 21:07
I'd certainly apply the principle of "if you're going to explain it, explain it properly" in physics
– Chris H
Mar 10 at 21:07
add a comment |
Although this seems like you are stuck between Scylla and Charybis it isn't that bad. It is annoying that the editor is unhelpful, but they are often non-committal in these situations.
Remember that when you send your resubmission with a response to the reviews, each reviewer will see the other's comments. So, in your response, include a section titled "Consideration of reviewers #1 & #2 comments about Analysis X". Explain that both reviewers had good points. And after careful consideration you have decided to do ... whatever you decide.
Depending on the journal / field, one option is to move an expanded version of the analysis (satisfying #2) to the supplement (satisfying #1). If supplement is not available, you can at least put that analysis into a subsection, clearly titled, so that readers (and #1) can more easily skim/skip that subsection without disturbing the overall flow.
I always lean toward including more rather than less, so I would probably end up saying something to #1 like "Based on the thoughtful remarks from reviewer #1, we realized that we failed to clearly explain analysis X, since we, and reviewer #2 both think it is important. As such, we have re-written this section emphasizing how it contributes to our main conclusions."
I have never heard of a reviewer rejecting a paper because an extra analysis was included. If the paper is too long after being accepted, the editor will ask you to trim it down and that can be another opportunity to move things to supplement/appendices.
edited Mar 10 at 5:37
virmaior
4,66411235
answered Mar 10 at 3:57
jerlichjerlich
45326
2
+1 for "lean toward including more rather than less". Gone are (or should be) the days where physical pages were precious and deliberately opaque writing was preciouser.
– Greg Martin
Mar 10 at 9:10
+1 for recommending remarks on the value of both reviews.
– Ethan Bolker
Mar 10 at 21:37
add a comment |
Although this seems like you are stuck between Scylla and Charybis it isn't that bad. It is annoying that the editor is unhelpful, but they are often non-committal in these situations.
Remember that when you send your resubmission with a response to the reviews, each reviewer will see the other's comments. So, in your response, include a section titled "Consideration of reviewers #1 & #2 comments about Analysis X". Explain that both reviewers had good points. And after careful consideration you have decided to do ... whatever you decide.
Depending on the journal / field, one option is to move an expanded version of the analysis (satisfying #2) to the supplement (satisfying #1). If supplement is not available, you can at least put that analysis into a subsection, clearly titled, so that readers (and #1) can more easily skim/skip that subsection without disturbing the overall flow.
I always lean toward including more rather than less, so I would probably end up saying something to #1 like "Based on the thoughtful remarks from reviewer #1, we realized that we failed to clearly explain analysis X, since we, and reviewer #2 both think it is important. As such, we have re-written this section emphasizing how it contributes to our main conclusions."
I have never heard of a reviewer rejecting a paper because an extra analysis was included. If the paper is too long after being accepted, the editor will ask you to trim it down and that can be another opportunity to move things to supplement/appendices.
edited Mar 10 at 5:37
virmaior
4,66411235
answered Mar 10 at 3:57
jerlichjerlich
45326
2
+1 for "lean toward including more rather than less". Gone are (or should be) the days where physical pages were precious and deliberately opaque writing was preciouser.
– Greg Martin
Mar 10 at 9:10
+1 for recommending remarks on the value of both reviews.
– Ethan Bolker
Mar 10 at 21:37
add a comment |
Although this seems like you are stuck between Scylla and Charybis it isn't that bad. It is annoying that the editor is unhelpful, but they are often non-committal in these situations.
Remember that when you send your resubmission with a response to the reviews, each reviewer will see the other's comments. So, in your response, include a section titled "Consideration of reviewers #1 & #2 comments about Analysis X". Explain that both reviewers had good points. And after careful consideration you have decided to do ... whatever you decide.
Depending on the journal / field, one option is to move an expanded version of the analysis (satisfying #2) to the supplement (satisfying #1). If supplement is not available, you can at least put that analysis into a subsection, clearly titled, so that readers (and #1) can more easily skim/skip that subsection without disturbing the overall flow.
I always lean toward including more rather than less, so I would probably end up saying something to #1 like "Based on the thoughtful remarks from reviewer #1, we realized that we failed to clearly explain analysis X, since we, and reviewer #2 both think it is important. As such, we have re-written this section emphasizing how it contributes to our main conclusions."
I have never heard of a reviewer rejecting a paper because an extra analysis was included. If the paper is too long after being accepted, the editor will ask you to trim it down and that can be another opportunity to move things to supplement/appendices.
edited Mar 10 at 5:37
virmaior
4,66411235
answered Mar 10 at 3:57
jerlichjerlich
45326
Although this seems like you are stuck between Scylla and Charybis it isn't that bad. It is annoying that the editor is unhelpful, but they are often non-committal in these situations.
Remember that when you send your resubmission with a response to the reviews, each reviewer will see the other's comments. So, in your response, include a section titled "Consideration of reviewers #1 & #2 comments about Analysis X". Explain that both reviewers had good points. And after careful consideration you have decided to do ... whatever you decide.
Depending on the journal / field, one option is to move an expanded version of the analysis (satisfying #2) to the supplement (satisfying #1). If supplement is not available, you can at least put that analysis into a subsection, clearly titled, so that readers (and #1) can more easily skim/skip that subsection without disturbing the overall flow.
I always lean toward including more rather than less, so I would probably end up saying something to #1 like "Based on the thoughtful remarks from reviewer #1, we realized that we failed to clearly explain analysis X, since we, and reviewer #2 both think it is important. As such, we have re-written this section emphasizing how it contributes to our main conclusions."
I have never heard of a reviewer rejecting a paper because an extra analysis was included. If the paper is too long after being accepted, the editor will ask you to trim it down and that can be another opportunity to move things to supplement/appendices.
edited Mar 10 at 5:37
virmaior
4,66411235
answered Mar 10 at 3:57
jerlichjerlich
45326
edited Mar 10 at 5:37
virmaior
4,66411235
edited Mar 10 at 5:37
virmaior
4,66411235
edited Mar 10 at 5:37
virmaior
4,66411235
4,66411235
answered Mar 10 at 3:57
jerlichjerlich
45326
answered Mar 10 at 3:57
jerlichjerlich
45326
answered Mar 10 at 3:57
jerlichjerlich
45326
45326
2
+1 for "lean toward including more rather than less". Gone are (or should be) the days where physical pages were precious and deliberately opaque writing was preciouser.
– Greg Martin
Mar 10 at 9:10
+1 for recommending remarks on the value of both reviews.
– Ethan Bolker
Mar 10 at 21:37
add a comment |
2
+1 for "lean toward including more rather than less". Gone are (or should be) the days where physical pages were precious and deliberately opaque writing was preciouser.
– Greg Martin
Mar 10 at 9:10
+1 for recommending remarks on the value of both reviews.
– Ethan Bolker
Mar 10 at 21:37
2
2
+1 for "lean toward including more rather than less". Gone are (or should be) the days where physical pages were precious and deliberately opaque writing was preciouser.
– Greg Martin
Mar 10 at 9:10
+1 for "lean toward including more rather than less". Gone are (or should be) the days where physical pages were precious and deliberately opaque writing was preciouser.
– Greg Martin
Mar 10 at 9:10
+1 for recommending remarks on the value of both reviews.
– Ethan Bolker
Mar 10 at 21:37
+1 for recommending remarks on the value of both reviews.
– Ethan Bolker
Mar 10 at 21:37
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f126224%2fhow-to-resolve-reviewer-1-says-remove-section-x-vs-reviewer-2-says-expand-se%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
What did the editor say?
– Allure
Mar 10 at 3:10
4
Possible duplicate of How to effectively address conflicting suggestions from reviewers
– darij grinberg
Mar 10 at 3:51
2
Would the paper lose anything by moving an extended discussion into SI and referring readers to it?
– anonymous
Mar 10 at 5:18
1
My apologies for editing your question, but I dropped #2 and #3 to #1 and #2, generalized, the title, and mentioned original reviewer #1 just at the end since they're not a party to the relevant question...
– virmaior
Mar 10 at 5:41
3
It’s your paper, not the editor’s or the reviewer’s. What do you think is best?
– Thomas
Mar 10 at 8:08