I submitted my article earlier this year in January. After 5 months I received a "Major revision". There were 3 different reviewers and they made very relevant comments that I found very useful. I answered all the reviewers and resubmitted the article.
Months later I received a "Minor Revision". One of the 3 reviewers asked to add a future research direction section. The other asked to correct the number of a certain section. The corrections were easy and I resubmitted the article.
Surprisingly, today I received a "Major Revision", which is quite unlikely. The email contained comments from the editor and #reviewer10 (a new one). The associate editor's email was the following:
Editor comments: The comments from the reviewer are quite negative. The editor questions about the quality of the paper. The paper is not well written. The equations are not well edited. Some figures are given in quite low quality. The authors should carefully revise the paper. This maybe the final chance for the revision.
Reviewer #10: This paper focuses on electric energy forecasting based on artificial intelligence. Energy forecasting is one critical point in energy systems, and there are many research studies on artificial intelligence-based energy forecasting. However, the innovation of this paper is not enough. There are many research studies on artificial intelligence-based energy forecasting. For example, the neural networks, support vector regression, gradient boosting mentioned in this paper are common methods. It seems that the reviewer cannot find anything new. In addition, feature selection in load forecasting is also a common method. In general, the paper uses the common methods to solve a traditional problem. The reviewer suggests that the paper should not be accepted by this journal.
The comments from the associate editor are surprising. If there werr some issues with the English in the paper or some figures, this would surely have been dealt with during the 1st revision or the 2nd revision. In the previous emails, the same associate editor didn't mention any issue or comments. But now suddenly there is an issue.
The comments from the reviewers demonstrates that the reviewer have not taken the time to read carefully or have not understood the content of the paper. There was 3 reviewers which made positive comments (accepted) the content.
Because "reviewer10" is written, I would assume that the paper was reviewed by at least 6 reviewers. None of them made a negative comment. So how am I getting "rejected" because of one bad review out of 10? Even if it is a major revision, the due date is 24 November, which is 13 days ahead, quite bizarre for a "major revision".
My question is: Is there anything I could do? Should I raise my concerns to the editor or refuse the revision?