Understanding reviewers comments on research paper

Question

I sent my Review Paper to a journal and it took almost 4 months to respond to me. In the first decision, the reviewers suggested some revisions. Their comments on the first decision were:

Reviewer: 1

Comments to the Author

The present manuscript refers to the review on TVC studies using many previous existing results. If the authors want to publish the present manuscript in a journal, the reviewer like to recommend some professional review journals. In case, the authors are advised to consider more aspects on the TVC effectivess and performance, based on the input energy or power for the control.

Reviewer: 2

Comments to the Author

The manuscript addresses a timely and important topic relating to the Fluidic thrust vectoring techniques. Various fluidic thrust vectoring techniques with its characteristics, design, classification, and different operational criteria were introduced and compared. The summary is completed and detailed. It is recommended for publication in PPR after a minor revision.

Reviewer: 3

Comments to the Author

The manuscript reviewed various fluidic thrust vectoring control techniques for application in jet engine nozzles. It includes the research summary which are being performed in past couple of decades. The effects of many parameter (flows and geometric) on thrust vectoring are described. The content of the manuscript is worthy for aerospace community dealing with thrust control and aircraft maneuverability. However, the following issues need to be addresses to make it more attractive to the readers: The authors are recommended to enrich their review article by incorporating the above issues.

Reviewer: 4

Comments to the Author

Review of “Analysis of Fluidic Thrust Vectoring Techniques in Jet Engine Nozzles” This manuscript performs a detailed review for the Fluidic Thrust Vectoring Controls (FTVC). In addition, authors discuss the effects, advantages, and disadvantages of each technique. For each technique, the reviews are very profound. Many tables are designed to summary the research of each technique. In particular, a table (labeled 12) is used to compare all the FTVC systems. Therefore, I would like to recommend this paper for publication in PPR. In addition, I have two suggestions.

After submitting the revised manuscript, they responded back with some futher suggestions

Reviewer: 1

Comments to the Author For the first round of review, the reviewer has pointed out some important issue to be resolved in the present manuscript. If the authors want to publish the present manuscript as a form of review journal, then they should not simply enumerate the results obtained from many previous papers, but give meaningful data of TVC based on accurate comparative analyses. As we know, the control performance of TVC would be proportional to the power or the energy amount applied. Thus, it does not make sense for the authors to show the results of many different control methods only. The authors should not argue that there are no data for the input power or energy and they can get the control effectiveness, the total pressure loss, or energy loss, etc. Otherwise. the present manuscript may be subject to a duplication issue or a plagiarism to the published papers.

Reviewer: 2

Comments to the Author According to my comments on the last manuscript, the four modifications are all OK. I recommend the revised manuscript for publication in PPR. I have two other suggestions, but it is not mandatory.

What should I do if I don't understand the suggestion of Reviewer 1. This is a review paper and I have added every data based on previous research papers. It doesn't make sense to me when the reviewer said "Thus, it does not make sense for the authors to show the results of many different control methods only."

What should I do now? should I contact the editor and ask for further clarification about reviewer 1 comments. Does the reviewer want me to apply each technique and compare my results with the data available in the literature?

Answer 1

If you don't know what a reviewer is saying, contact the editor. They can either tell you what the comments is supposed to mean, or they can write to the reviewer for clarification.

As an editor for the last 15 years, I've been contacted by authors with this kind of question numerous times and I've always thought that that is entirely appropriate.

Answer 2

The reviews you received are borderline nonsensical, and might have been written by an unqualified person or even a robot. It looks like you submitted to a scam journal.

You should withdraw your submission as soon as possible and look for a reasonable venue for publishing it.

Answer 3

Well, the reviewer 1 is asking you not to present only the data from different study, but to compare them in a quantitative manner ("accurate comparative analyses").

However, you can always refute the reviewers' comments, they are comments, you can argue if they are reasonable or doable. In this case, I would reply that the additional analyses required by the reviewer 1 are beyond the scope of the review you performed. In my field I have seen (and found useful) both review papers providing kind of a large catalogs of data (like yours seems to be) and review papers providing an in-depth and complex comparative analysis of already published data (like reviewer 1 seems to request).

Contact the editor, then decide what to do, but keep in mind it is called peer review because you are a peer discussing among peers.