How to resolve: Reviewer #1 says remove section X vs. Reviewer #2 says expand section XHow to effectively address conflicting suggestions from reviewersHow to respond to a perplexing review?Editor's mail with no reviewer's commentIn which case does PLOS ONE use a third reviewer?Probability of acceptance when editor requests “major revisions” but one reviewer recommended “full rejection”Manuscript Revision: Is it alright to include the response to reviewer comments as an attached file rather than typing in the text box provided?How I can respond to this major revision?Is it common practice to have a separate “Further Discussion” after the conclusion in an academic article?How should I respond to a reviewer comment that I didn't make changes when I did?Is it appropriate to summarise and paraphrase complex reviewer comments before providing my answer?How to respond/reply to a reviewer who doesn't seem to “get” the paper
Should I tell my boss the work he did was worthless
What does a stand alone "T" index value do?
How much attack damage does the AC boost from a shield prevent on average?
Solving "Resistance between two nodes on a grid" problem in Mathematica
What is the chance of making a successful appeal to dismissal decision from a PhD program after failing the qualifying exam in the 2nd attempt?
Why don't MCU characters ever seem to have language issues?
They call me Inspector Morse
Is "history" a male-biased word ("his+story")?
Why does Captain Marvel assume the people on this planet know this?
Algorithm to convert a fixed-length string to the smallest possible collision-free representation?
Should QA ask requirements to developers?
Does "variables should live in the smallest scope as possible" include the case "variables should not exist if possible"?
The bar has been raised
How to pass a string to a command that expects a file?
How do I express some one as a black person?
My story is written in English, but is set in my home country. What language should I use for the dialogue?
PTIJ: How can I halachically kill a vampire?
Replacing Windows 7 security updates with anti-virus?
Make a transparent 448*448 image
Rejected in 4th interview round citing insufficient years of experience
If the Captain's screens are out, does he switch seats with the co-pilot?
Extra alignment tab has been changed to cr. } using table, tabular and resizebox
Good for you! in Russian
Do f-stop and exposure time perfectly cancel?
How to resolve: Reviewer #1 says remove section X vs. Reviewer #2 says expand section X
How to effectively address conflicting suggestions from reviewersHow to respond to a perplexing review?Editor's mail with no reviewer's commentIn which case does PLOS ONE use a third reviewer?Probability of acceptance when editor requests “major revisions” but one reviewer recommended “full rejection”Manuscript Revision: Is it alright to include the response to reviewer comments as an attached file rather than typing in the text box provided?How I can respond to this major revision?Is it common practice to have a separate “Further Discussion” after the conclusion in an academic article?How should I respond to a reviewer comment that I didn't make changes when I did?Is it appropriate to summarise and paraphrase complex reviewer comments before providing my answer?How to respond/reply to a reviewer who doesn't seem to “get” the paper
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
|
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
1
What did the editor say?
– Allure
2 days ago
4
Possible duplicate of How to effectively address conflicting suggestions from reviewers
– darij grinberg
2 days ago
2
Would the paper lose anything by moving an extended discussion into SI and referring readers to it?
– anonymous
2 days ago
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
2 days ago
3
It’s your paper, not the editor’s or the reviewer’s. What do you think is best?
– Thomas
2 days ago
|
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
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 2 days ago
corey979
4,27052233
4,27052233
asked 2 days ago
xavierxavier
522217
522217
1
What did the editor say?
– Allure
2 days ago
4
Possible duplicate of How to effectively address conflicting suggestions from reviewers
– darij grinberg
2 days ago
2
Would the paper lose anything by moving an extended discussion into SI and referring readers to it?
– anonymous
2 days ago
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
2 days ago
3
It’s your paper, not the editor’s or the reviewer’s. What do you think is best?
– Thomas
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
1
What did the editor say?
– Allure
2 days ago
4
Possible duplicate of How to effectively address conflicting suggestions from reviewers
– darij grinberg
2 days ago
2
Would the paper lose anything by moving an extended discussion into SI and referring readers to it?
– anonymous
2 days ago
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
2 days ago
3
It’s your paper, not the editor’s or the reviewer’s. What do you think is best?
– Thomas
2 days ago
1
1
What did the editor say?
– Allure
2 days ago
What did the editor say?
– Allure
2 days ago
4
4
Possible duplicate of How to effectively address conflicting suggestions from reviewers
– darij grinberg
2 days ago
Possible duplicate of How to effectively address conflicting suggestions from reviewers
– darij grinberg
2 days ago
2
2
Would the paper lose anything by moving an extended discussion into SI and referring readers to it?
– anonymous
2 days ago
Would the paper lose anything by moving an extended discussion into SI and referring readers to it?
– anonymous
2 days ago
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
2 days ago
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
2 days ago
3
3
It’s your paper, not the editor’s or the reviewer’s. What do you think is best?
– Thomas
2 days ago
It’s your paper, not the editor’s or the reviewer’s. What do you think is best?
– Thomas
2 days ago
|
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.
6
I'd certainly apply the principle of "if you're going to explain it, explain it properly" in physics
– Chris H
2 days ago
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.
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
2 days ago
+1 for recommending remarks on the value of both reviews.
– Ethan Bolker
2 days ago
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.
6
I'd certainly apply the principle of "if you're going to explain it, explain it properly" in physics
– Chris H
2 days ago
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.
6
I'd certainly apply the principle of "if you're going to explain it, explain it properly" in physics
– Chris H
2 days ago
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.
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 2 days ago
virmaiorvirmaior
4,65411235
4,65411235
6
I'd certainly apply the principle of "if you're going to explain it, explain it properly" in physics
– Chris H
2 days ago
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
2 days ago
6
6
I'd certainly apply the principle of "if you're going to explain it, explain it properly" in physics
– Chris H
2 days ago
I'd certainly apply the principle of "if you're going to explain it, explain it properly" in physics
– Chris H
2 days ago
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.
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
2 days ago
+1 for recommending remarks on the value of both reviews.
– Ethan Bolker
2 days ago
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.
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
2 days ago
+1 for recommending remarks on the value of both reviews.
– Ethan Bolker
2 days ago
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.
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 2 days ago
virmaior
4,65411235
4,65411235
answered 2 days ago
jerlichjerlich
43926
43926
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
2 days ago
+1 for recommending remarks on the value of both reviews.
– Ethan Bolker
2 days ago
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
2 days ago
+1 for recommending remarks on the value of both reviews.
– Ethan Bolker
2 days ago
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
2 days ago
+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
2 days ago
+1 for recommending remarks on the value of both reviews.
– Ethan Bolker
2 days ago
+1 for recommending remarks on the value of both reviews.
– Ethan Bolker
2 days ago
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
2 days ago
4
Possible duplicate of How to effectively address conflicting suggestions from reviewers
– darij grinberg
2 days ago
2
Would the paper lose anything by moving an extended discussion into SI and referring readers to it?
– anonymous
2 days ago
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
2 days ago
3
It’s your paper, not the editor’s or the reviewer’s. What do you think is best?
– Thomas
2 days ago