Actually fuck it, I will risk putting some extra info on this because it's important for academics to know.
If you get a reject on reports like this: APPEAL.
A lot of academics are afraid to appeal or think that a rebuttal will just get sent back to the same reviewers, but any publisher worth their salt would send this to an advisory board member to adjudicate. It's shit that it needs to be done, because it creates work for authors AND editors and it slows everything down, but it is worth doing if you have a case! Do not let lazy fucks win and ruin your chances!
- This comment is beyond the scope of the work presented, this work focuses on [x,y,z]
- These additional experiments are not relevant because [insert reason]
- I disagree with this point because [reason]
It's impossible for editors to be exact experts in every manuscript they handle, so rely on reviewers and authors. If there is a fundamental disagreement between author and reviewer, a good publishing house will ensure it is policy that board members are consulted for their expertise (this is what they are for!).
Peer review is a million miles from a perfect system, but good publishers do actually care about trying their best for authors and scientific integrity. I'm not going to pretend that there aren't a lot of dodgy publishing houses out there because there absolutely are, but it's worth pushing back if you get a bullshit report, because a good one WILL get an adjudicator.
Oh - and publishers do blacklist bad reviewers. They just need to know who the bad reviewers are.
Also, only tangentially related, do not be afraid to ask for extensions during a revision period. The publisher does not want to lose your manuscript. They get granted for all kinds of reasons and often you don't even need to provide a reason to get one.
pixelskylines
prguitarman
vaporwave
yousharknotpass
