2 edited title
| link

Probability of journal paper acceptance after reviews - 1 "minorwhen editor requests "major revisions" and 1but one reviewer recommended "full rejection"

    Tweeted twitter.com/StackAcademia/status/692515902672244737
source | link

Probability of journal paper acceptance after reviews - 1 "minor revisions" and 1 "full rejection"

I recently received reviews on a paper that I submitted to an Elsevier journal, with 2 reviewers. One had some minor comments and recommended minor revisions, while the second reviewer recommended full rejection and was very vehement about it.

The second reviewer's concerns were basically that he believes that one of the databases used in the paper (which is used in many other studies published in this journal) is completely invalid, but to back up their claim they posted links to a bunch of blog articles. Overall though, they were very disparaging of the paper in almost every possible way because of that.

The editor gave the paper a "major revision" decision. While I feel like we can respond to the comments, it doesn't look like the second reviewer would be convinced regardless of what we respond if he believes that database is invalid. I've also read that if a paper gets a "full reject" recommendation from even one reviewer, the probability of it being accepted is basically zero regardless of what the other reviewers say.

Any thoughts on how to proceed?