Revision for the fourth time with major revisions disguised as minor revision

Question

I sent an article to a journal of a reputed publisher. After about six months and 3 revisions, of which 2 were major and 1 was minor, I re-submitted the article. However, after the third revision, I received another request for revision, and this time it was from a third reviewer. The first reviewer has explicitly stated that they are satisfied with the changes made. However, the third reviewer has given almost 4 pages of revisions.

The editor has termed it as 'minor' revision. However, they are not minor at all. The third reviewer wants me to completely re-write every section of the article. The article is conceptual in nature and so their view is completely different than mine.

Naturally, I am exhausted of the back and forth. Are there any suggestions as to what I should do? I am a young author trying to make my way into the world of research and publication.

Answer 1

If I were you, I'd probably try to make the smallest revisions possible that allow me to state, in the reply to reviewers, that I addressed at least some of the comments of the new reviewer. Sometimes things look big but can be addressed in a small way, for example a reviewer might say "rewrite Section X and in particular change the claim that XX", and you can address that changing said claim only. Whenever they are not specific, there's a good chance getting away with not changing anything, or changing some wordings just cosmetically. I'd also give arguments why I don't do all of them (in case I don't). Maybe I'd add in my comment/letter to the editor a remark about how the process has gone up to now and that demands of previous reviewers have been satisfied, so the opinion of the new reviewer asking for a large rewrite is apparently not shared by the others, and it's not my own opinion either that this would benefit the paper, however I tried to address raised issues as well as I could.

Obviously I can't know to what extent this strategy works here without much effort (for sure it takes a bit), but my impression is that your chances may be best if you continue to "play the game" in the regular way at the surface, still giving the new reviewer as little as one can just about get away with. At the end of the day it will depend on the editor to what extent they rest with the reviewer or with your point of view, and we can't know that. However, if I am editor and I bring in a new reviewer because a previous one dropped out, the new reviewer doesn't necessarily make me happy with a review like this if otherwise the paper looked close to ready. I may well accept in the next round if the author convinces me they have done all that they reasonably could leaving unchanged some bits of the paper that were unfairly attacked. The editor will make the decision, not the new reviewer, and the editor is not obliged to insist on whatever the new reviewer says.

Answer 2

Your options are the usual ones. You can comply as best you can. You can complain to the editor and hope for the best. You can withdraw the article and submit elsewhere, though that will start the process over again.

A complaint to the editor could be mild, or a refutation of the need for revision, but it is the editor that has all the control here. But your statement that the reviewer has a different conception might hold some sway.

Answer 3

You can always argue why the suggested revisions do not agree with the main theme or aim of your paper. In particular, show how the reviewer's suggestions detract the main message or contributions of your paper.

Answer 4

I am an associate editor at a journal. Here is my recommendation for an author who might find themself in your situation.

I recommend that you write a very polite email directly to the lowest-level editor whom you are able to contact [see my note below] and explain your frustrations (again, very politely and without accusing anyone of anything) and then explicitly propose to them which revisions you consider reasonable and which you consider unreasonable. This lets you take control of the situation. Considering that your article has not been rejected at this point, you can reasonably assume that the editors are favourably disposed to your article. So, by proposing what you consider reasonable, many reasonable editors will agree with what you propose.

An important note: Here is what I mean by "lowest-level editor": some journals have an editor hierarchy of Editor-in-Chief | Senior Editor | Associate Editor. (Note: this does NOT include any purely administrative editorial managers who just forward messages back and forth--I am referring to editors who are actually subject matter experts.) If that is the case, then you should address your concerns to the Associate Editor. You should address the lowest level so that you do not offend anyone by "jumping rank". However, in some journals (like mine), the associate editor is anonymous and authors are not able to contact them directly. If so, then you should address the lowest level editor who is visible (Senior Editor) in my example and politely explain that you would have addressed your concern to the Associate Editor except that you have no direct access to them. Again, this is important so that you do not offend anyone by "jumping rank" in raising your concerns.

Answer 5

Please remember: the reviewers are giving suggestion to you and to the editor, but the editor has the final word regarding publication.

It seems like 3rd reviewer is crossing the line, from simply reviewing your paper to wanting you to revise the paper towards their interpretation of the concept you are discussing. In fact, the 3rd reviewer is not finding any error in your paper, but they have different opinions and views.

This debate is best addressed involving the community at large (i.e. at conference and by allowing the community at large to read your opinion), not by removing the debate with "tampering" publications with different views.

Point this out politely and clearly in your confidential reply to the editor.