Got an article back today. Reviewer 2 offered measured criticism that will improve the paper—her/his comments are helpful.. Reviewer 1 is a dick who totally missed the mark and basically wants the paper to be about something different. Editor offered r&r with major revision. Worth revising or try someplace else? Upper-middle ranked subfield journal.
major revisions
-
How many other pubs in those kinds of journals do you have? And what's your job status? If you already have a bunch of those kinds of articles, and you've already got a TT job, you can probably afford to walk. If you don't have much on the cv and/or you are on the job market, I'd do what they ask (or at least hand-wave enough to get Reviewer 1 off your back.
-
R&R is all one can hope for. make revisions suggested by Reviewer 2 and make sure to clearly highlight this in your response memo. Try to make at least some revisions suggested by Reviewer 2, or at least make it appear as if you have, and carefully explain why Reviewer 1 other comments were not relevant.
If this is AJS, remember that Clemens will reject the paper if you make revisions and resubmit too quickly. Wait at least three months before resubmitting
-
Remember at lower ranked journals, the standards are lower. Those "you should have written a different paper" review normally have much less weight at lesser journals.
As long as you courteously address why what they're asking can't be done or better justify what you actually did, you should be fine at such journals.
-
I had a major revisions like this - both reviewers were pompous, and wrong on a lot of points. But they were also right that I had ignored an entire literature because I didnt want to deal with it. So I spent a month reading everything, and then demolished all their arguments. They were right that I had ignored the literature even though their claims were wrong, but by engaging that literature the paper was vastly improved. I ended up rewriting almost the entire front end. Even R&Rs can make you angry because many reviewers are not constructive and / or just want to see what they want to see rather than evaluate the paper for what it is, and not what they wish it was (and if the paper was what they wished - they'd definitely reject it as then it would have stepped on their toes. Welcome to academic publishing).
You will need to write a response letter dealing with the comments point by point of each reviewer. For now, step away from it. Then I recommend writing the letter first, as the process of writing it will show you where the changes will have to be made.
-
I wouldn't pull it.
Chances are the editor hasn't even read your paper and is just assuming what the reviewers wrote is valid.
If it's not, you give a little to get a little and with fawning politeness explain to Rev 1 where they're wrong. You're doing this partially for Rev 1, but also for the editor. They wouldn't R&R you if they didn't want the paper.
-
I’m reviewer 1 and think you’re taking the comments too personally. Need to put the paper away, come back to the comments in a couple weeks and realize I actually gave very measured critiques
Is this real? I saw someone vent about one of my reviews on SJMR recently too