How should irrelevant comment(s) from a peer reviewer be handled?
Some times an irrelevant comments is made on a peer review report based on which a paper is rejected and that makes the author very discouraging. Like "Proper discussion is not made why apple is red" while the paper is on lily flower. The answer could be any of the same
a) The editorial board should take care of such comments and provide the full support to evaluate the paper a s per merit rather than rejection.
b) The paper be rejected and resubmitted to the same or other Journal citing the rejection cause.
c) The author should write a strong letter to the chief editor to black list such reviewers and request evaluate the paper as per merit.
d) The publisher also have some responsibility as it may raise an anti-publisher X waive among the authors.
e) Such sensitive matter be discussed in an open international platform combing all publishers and impartial judges to take decision on the matter.
a) The editorial board should take care of such comments and provide the full support to evaluate the paper a s per merit rather than rejection.
b) The paper be rejected and resubmitted to the same or other Journal citing the rejection cause.
c) The author should write a strong letter to the chief editor to black list such reviewers and request evaluate the paper as per merit.
d) The publisher also have some responsibility as it may raise an anti-publisher X waive among the authors.
e) Such sensitive matter be discussed in an open international platform combing all publishers and impartial judges to take decision on the matter.
Post an Answer
Sign In to Answer
13 Answers
SE_Prof24
a) The editorial board should take care of such comments and provide the full support to evaluate the paper a s per merit rather than rejection.
Justification: Peer review functions best when the editorial board eliminates reviewer comments that are irrational or irrelevant. It is not appropriate to penalize authors for the bias or error of a reviewer. Although authors are free to politely reply to reviews, editors and publishers are ultimately in charge of ensuring impartiality and merit-based assessment.
Though less useful, options (b), (c), (d), and (e) express frustration:
(b) wastes the author's time.
(c) is rarely successful and is excessively combative.
(d) oversimplifies and could harm the relationship between authors and publishers.
(e) is aspirational but impractical for actual publishing.
Justification: Peer review functions best when the editorial board eliminates reviewer comments that are irrational or irrelevant. It is not appropriate to penalize authors for the bias or error of a reviewer. Although authors are free to politely reply to reviews, editors and publishers are ultimately in charge of ensuring impartiality and merit-based assessment.
Though less useful, options (b), (c), (d), and (e) express frustration:
(b) wastes the author's time.
(c) is rarely successful and is excessively combative.
(d) oversimplifies and could harm the relationship between authors and publishers.
(e) is aspirational but impractical for actual publishing.
abdelgawad eltahawy
This is a very common and frustrating experience for researchers. The core of the issue is how to professionally and effectively address a review that contains fundamentally flawed or irrelevant critiques, without damaging your own reputation or chances of publication.
Let's evaluate the options you provided:
- a) The editorial board should take care of such comments and provide the full support to evaluate the paper as per merit rather than rejection.
- This is the most correct and standard professional practice. The editor's primary role is to be an impartial judge who evaluates both the manuscript and the reviews. A good editor should identify when a reviewer has misunderstood the paper's scope or made an irrelevant point. The ideal outcome is that the editor disregards that specific comment and makes a decision based on the valid points in the report and their own assessment.
- b) The paper be rejected and resubmitted to the same or other Journal citing the rejection cause.
- This is a common reaction, but it's not the best strategic action. Resubmitting to the same journal after a rejection without a formal appeal is usually not possible. Submitting to a new journal without addressing the flawed review is the standard path, but you should not cite the irrelevant comment as the reason for rejection in your cover letter. It can come across as defensive and blaming.
- c) The author should write a strong letter to the chief editor to black list such reviewers and request evaluate the paper as per merit.
- This is highly inadvisable. Demanding a reviewer be "blacklisted" is aggressive and will likely poison your relationship with the editor. It shifts the focus from your science to a personal complaint. The editor is unlikely to comply and may view you as difficult.
- d) The publisher also have some responsibility as it may raise an anti-publisher X waive among the authors.
- While publishers have a responsibility to maintain quality and fairness, this option frames the issue as a public relations problem. It's not a practical strategy for an individual author. Your goal is to get your paper published, not to start a campaign against the publisher.
- e) Such sensitive matter be discussed in an open international platform combing all publishers and impartial judges to take decision on the matter.
- This is an idealized but impractical solution. The peer review system is decentralized and run by individual journals. There is no "international court" for peer review disputes. The process is designed to be handled at the journal level by the editor.
Recommended Course of Action
When faced with a rejection based on an irrelevant comment, here is the professional and strategic approach:
- Appeal the Decision (if you strongly believe in your paper):
- Write a calm, professional, and evidence-based letter to the handling editor.
- Thank the editor and reviewers for their time.
- State clearly that you believe one of the key criticisms for rejection was based on a misunderstanding of the paper's scope (e.g., "The reviewer's comment regarding the color of apples seems to be outside the scope of our study, which focuses exclusively on lily flowers.").
- Briefly explain why the comment is not applicable, focusing on the manuscript's stated aims and boundaries.
- Reiterate your willingness to address any other valid concerns raised by the reviewers or the editor.
- Politely request that the manuscript be reconsidered based on its actual merits.
- Revise and Submit Elsewhere:
- If an appeal seems futile or the journal has a policy against it, the best course is to move on.
- Ignore the irrelevant comment. Do not make changes to your paper based on it.
- Carefully address any legitimate minor points from the reviews to strengthen the manuscript.
- Submit to a new journal with a fresh cover letter. Do not mention the previous rejection or the irrelevant comment.
In summary: The responsibility ultimately falls on the editor (option a). As an author, your most powerful tool is a professional and reasoned appeal to that editor, not a confrontational letter or a public campaign. The peer review system is human and fallible, and learning to navigate its flaws diplomatically is a key skill for a successful academic career.
Susana Santos Braga
With kindness and diplomacy. If irrelevant, gently note that the scope of the work is directed elsewhere. Maintaining a professional and courteous tone is essential.
Otieno Olwendo
Once a decision has been on publication, the author should take a critical review of the comments issued on their paper then consider resubmission or submitting else. Also, the author may need to have constructive exchange with the editor incase of any mistakes or oversights. Eye is to man.
Amina Othmani
Based on many criteria like the methodology, the transparence, the novelty many things and the most imoprtant to be neutral
SamL
If the author(s) believe a reviewer's comments are invalid, they should be highlighted and brought to the editor's attention. If the editor has already rejected a manuscript based on such feedback, it is still worth bringing to their attention, as they should consider this feedback and may suggest a resubmission. The reviewer may also be marked as problematic if it was felt that this was a deliberate attempt to reject a paper incorrectly.
Виталий
Игнорировать и делать по своему если уверен в своих данных. Но учесть замечания
в последующей работе.
в последующей работе.
Sanka Niranjan Atapattu
What you mention is quite common, especially when a manuscript goes to reviewers who do not have the background to understand your research work. If your paper is rejected, I think the most practical thing to do is submit it to another journal whose aims and scope are within your manuscript.
Chindo
In my oppinion, the author can politely write the editor proving his case with strong justification(s) and calling the attention of the editor about such comment. Sometimes, the editors are too busy with many papers, they might not notice such misleading comment from the reviewer. Authors should know that they can always challenge or rebut some review comments if they have strong justification.
Irina
I think the best decision is to resubmit your manuscript to another Journal considering comments of reviewer(s). There are many possibilities for this and author(s) will certainly find suitable Journal. Although I had to review manuscripts which hardly could be published in any Journal.
-
The motivation behind conducting a risk assessment
Answered 11/30/23 -
Ph.D. links in the field of Medical Microbiology
Answered 10/28/22 - Browse All Pings
HHT
A) If the Editor was writing to you that rejections was due to the argument that "why the apple is red" is not discussed: Then you are free to approach the Editorial Board i.e. the Editor and the EiC for reassessment (and this usually works very well if done polite and convincing). There you need to argue scientifically why red apples are not related to lily flowers, and ask for reevaluation of your (revised) submission (including revision addressing all purposeful comments and an accompanying letter).
B) If the editor named other arguments of rejection (while the referees was dabating also the red apple): Often this does cause angriness; and you will understand better once calming down from the initial frustration. Then think about these concerns and accept the rejection. Next is to substantiate the manuscript against the concerning issues (if you can). Usually you have to send it somewhere else (after rejection) unless the "previous" Editor was allowing an extensively reworked manuscript as new submission (i.e. new peer-review, usually different referees).
C) The Editor did reject your submission without giving an argument other then forwarding the referee comments: That is a badly managed Journal. Bad luck for you. Seek for a more professional one that has useful SOPs to support scientific publishing.