Having one's paper rejected by reviewer 2 is always a painful experience. Fortunately, this time, reviewer 1 made my day:
- Reviewer 2: "I am doing a quick turn around on this ms because I do not believe the data are of sufficient interest or significance to merit publication. I wish I could offer a way to salvage the paper."
- Reviewer 1: "Above all I should admit really appreciating the work presented, ranking it as the most interesting I have read over the last few years. Clearly predefined hypotheses; statistical analyses defined prior to data collection; easy access to all data and software; modelling of the empirical observations; and a measurement paradigm novel to our field: the MS has all the ingredients one expects in high quality research. Hence I take the opportunity to thank and congratulate the authors with their work."
#academicmastodon #academicChatter @academicchatter #Reviewer2 #Reviewer2MustBeStopped
In fact, in this case, I think I should complement the classic #Reviewer2MustBeStopped with a #ButPleaseThankReviewer1ForMe
@leovarnet if I were an editor, I'd probably ignore reviewer 2 with that kind of response, and maybe find another reviewer.
@Ear_bele @leovarnet Indeed! That is exactly what needs to be done. This is also the approach to follow when reviews are below average, e.g., two or three sentences either too positive or too negative.
@lborrell @Ear_bele @yrochat @aebrockwell In this particular case, the editor opted for a rejection with a very diplomatic message, suggesting to address some comments and resubmit as a new submission... so I'm wondering if this is not a strategy to bypass reviewer 2 and be able to politely exclude him from the process...
