4 added 39 characters in body
source | link

@Fomite's answer is spot on. I would like to expand further on the differencedifferences between a negativebiased review, a lazy review, a significantly erroneous review, and a biasednegative review, and which do/don't warrant an appeal.

@Fomite's answer is spot on. I would like to expand further on the difference between a negative review, a lazy review, and a biased review, and which do/don't warrant an appeal.

@Fomite's answer is spot on. I would like to expand further on the differences between a biased review, a lazy review, a significantly erroneous review, and a negative review, and which do/don't warrant an appeal.

3 added "erroneous review" category
source | link

(per JeffE's suggestion)

This is a distinct case from the Lazy Review. It does not include the case where the reviewer "erroneously" concludes that your work is not interesting or useful, just because you disagree with this conclusion. It does not include the case where the reviewer says "I am concerned about X" and you believe you've adequately addressed X.

It does include cases where a review is affected by a significant factual, logical, or mathematical error. These reviews This areis grounds for appeal.

(It was originally my understanding thatA minor error is highly unlikely to be the reason for a reviewer "mistake"rejection. Therefore, for a minor error, an appeal is not grounds forlikely to be successful - an appeal will be useful only if the point of appeal was the reason for the rejection. IIn the case of a minor error, I would have advisedadvise to use the reviewer's mistake as an opportunity: to clarify in the text points that might lead people to mistakenly discount your results, or even to decide to ignore the criticism because it's not a common enough misconception to be worth addressing in the paper.

However, on suggestion from JeffE in the comments, I looked up some journal policies and found that a significant factual, logical, or mathematical error can, in fact, be grounds for an appeal. I have therefore edited this post to reflect that.)

This is a distinct case from the Lazy Review. It does not include the case where the reviewer "erroneously" concludes that your work is not interesting or useful, just because you disagree with this conclusion. It does not include the case where the reviewer says "I am concerned about X" and you believe you've adequately addressed X.

It does include cases where a review is affected by a significant factual, logical, or mathematical error. These reviews are grounds for appeal.

(It was originally my understanding that a reviewer "mistake" is not grounds for an appeal. I would have advised to use the reviewer's mistake as an opportunity: to clarify in the text points that might lead people to mistakenly discount your results, or even to decide to ignore the criticism because it's not a common enough misconception to be worth addressing in the paper.

However, on suggestion from JeffE in the comments, I looked up some journal policies and found that a significant factual, logical, or mathematical error can, in fact, be grounds for an appeal. I have therefore edited this post to reflect that.)

(per JeffE's suggestion)

This is a distinct case from the Lazy Review. It does not include the case where the reviewer "erroneously" concludes that your work is not interesting or useful, just because you disagree with this conclusion. It does not include the case where the reviewer says "I am concerned about X" and you believe you've adequately addressed X.

It does include cases where a review is affected by a significant factual, logical, or mathematical error. This is grounds for appeal.

(A minor error is highly unlikely to be the reason for a rejection. Therefore, for a minor error, an appeal is not likely to be successful - an appeal will be useful only if the point of appeal was the reason for the rejection. In the case of a minor error, I would advise to use the reviewer's mistake as an opportunity: to clarify in the text points that might lead people to mistakenly discount your results, or even to decide to ignore the criticism because it's not a common enough misconception to be worth addressing in the paper.)

2 added "erroneous review" category
source | link

Significantly Erroneous Review

This is a distinct case from the Lazy Review. It does not include the case where the reviewer "erroneously" concludes that your work is not interesting or useful, just because you disagree with this conclusion. It does not include the case where the reviewer says "I am concerned about X" and you believe you've adequately addressed X.

It does include cases where a review is affected by a significant factual, logical, or mathematical error. These reviews are grounds for appeal.

Example (the reviewer is mistaken as to the meaning of "graph" here):

Paper title: Graph analysis of System ABC shows differences in A-B connections during Condition X vs. Y

Review: This paper uses a novel method to study ABC system dynamics. However, I don't know anything about graph analysis so I'm going to interpret the paper through the lens of a different analysis method I do know something about. Thus the only constructive feedback I can give is that this paper is a poorly written explanation of a structural equation model of XYZ - the conclusions drawn make little sense given the data, i.e. they frequently refer to "graphs" but all I see are these pictures of circles and arrows.

(It was originally my understanding that a reviewer "mistake" is not grounds for an appeal. I would have advised to use the reviewer's mistake as an opportunity: to clarify in the text points that might lead people to mistakenly discount your results, or even to decide to ignore the criticism because it's not a common enough misconception to be worth addressing in the paper.

However, on suggestion from JeffE in the comments, I looked up some journal policies and found that a significant factual, logical, or mathematical error can, in fact, be grounds for an appeal. I have therefore edited this post to reflect that.)

Negative Review

Negative Review

Significantly Erroneous Review

This is a distinct case from the Lazy Review. It does not include the case where the reviewer "erroneously" concludes that your work is not interesting or useful, just because you disagree with this conclusion. It does not include the case where the reviewer says "I am concerned about X" and you believe you've adequately addressed X.

It does include cases where a review is affected by a significant factual, logical, or mathematical error. These reviews are grounds for appeal.

Example (the reviewer is mistaken as to the meaning of "graph" here):

Paper title: Graph analysis of System ABC shows differences in A-B connections during Condition X vs. Y

Review: This paper uses a novel method to study ABC system dynamics. However, I don't know anything about graph analysis so I'm going to interpret the paper through the lens of a different analysis method I do know something about. Thus the only constructive feedback I can give is that this paper is a poorly written explanation of a structural equation model of XYZ - the conclusions drawn make little sense given the data, i.e. they frequently refer to "graphs" but all I see are these pictures of circles and arrows.

(It was originally my understanding that a reviewer "mistake" is not grounds for an appeal. I would have advised to use the reviewer's mistake as an opportunity: to clarify in the text points that might lead people to mistakenly discount your results, or even to decide to ignore the criticism because it's not a common enough misconception to be worth addressing in the paper.

However, on suggestion from JeffE in the comments, I looked up some journal policies and found that a significant factual, logical, or mathematical error can, in fact, be grounds for an appeal. I have therefore edited this post to reflect that.)

Negative Review

1
source | link