Is it ethical to re-submit a manuscript without addressing comments from a particular reviewer while asking the editor to exclude them?

Question

We have a manuscript that has been rejected from different journals twice: once after initial review, once after the editor felt we didn't address the reviewer comments appropriately.

In both cases the same reviewer pointed out what he thought to be a fundamental flaw of the study. We disagree with their assessment. We know it is the same person because they said so, even though they didn't provide their name. We have an assumption who it might be.

Would it be considered unethical to submit the paper to a different journal without addressing the reviewer's comments?

Would it be considered unethical to submit the paper to a different journal while listing who we think the reviewer might be as an opposed reviewer stating that we have a conflicting approach to our particular area of research and feel they might not comment fairly?

Answer 1

I don't actually think it is unethical, given that you are saying why, but I doubt that it will help, and will probably hurt, your case for publication by any reputable journal. They will probably want the reading of that reviewer.

While you don't have to address every reviewer comment, you should, at the minimum, consider it. Having a different opinion on a matter isn't enough. If you can't clearly refute those comments to the satisfaction of an editor you don't have a very strong case for publication.

Perhaps you have work to do.

Answer 2

The ethics of your plan depends on the following unexplained statement:

"In both cases the same reviewer pointed out what he thought to be a fundamental flaw of the study. We disagree with their assessment." (my emphasis).

It is unclear on which basis you "disagree". In any respectable scientific or intellectual debate "disagreeing" does not suffice as a justification. You need to explain an in this case thoroughly and precisely, why you disagree with the criticism.

If your disagreement is based on a relatively strong basis, and you explain it effectively, I think your plan is ethical. Otherwise, it seems like very bad scholarship (more than an ethical question).

Answer 3

Would it be considered unethical to submit the paper to a different journal while listing who we think the reviewer might be as an opposed reviewer stating that we have a conflicting approach to our particular area of research and feel they might not comment fairly?

Of course it is unethical. What you are proposing is to mislead an editor in order to circumvent normal peer review and get your paper published despite appearing to have a fundamental flaw.

The proper course of action is to modify the paper to clearly explain why this apparent flaw does not actually invalidate your results. If this reviewer thought it was a problem, and an editor agreed, probably others will too, so this is worth doing even if you don't get the same reviewer again.

Answer 4

Is it unethical to submit a paper without addressing criticism?

Maybe. I lean towards "yes", but it is complicated.

On the one hand, if one journal does not accept a paper, but the authors are confident of their results, then it is entirely reasonable to resubmit the paper elsewhere. This really isn't a problem, in and of itself.

On the other hand, if an author submits a paper to a journal, and the reviewers point out perceived errors or flaws, the burden is on the author of the paper to either correct the errors (if they are "legitimate" problems), or rebut the reviewer and explain why the perceived errors are not a problem. Until the problems are either corrected or rebutted, the assumption should be that the paper is flawed.

If the author resubmits the paper somewhere else without fixing the problems, they are engaging in a kind of deception—they are presenting a flawed paper as though it had no flaws.

Additionally, this reeks of something like p-hacking. Whenever you submit a paper, there is some chance that it will be accepted, even if it is flawed. The more times you resubmit the paper, the more likely it is that some journal, somewhere, will eventually accept it. It is like rerunning the same flawed experiment over and over again, and only keeping the result which, at random, rises above your desired significance level.

Don't do it.

Is it productive to submit a paper without addressing criticism?

No. Absolutely not.

Even if you are being selfish, this is a waste of your time (not to mention the time of the reviewers and editors who have to deal with your paper). Academic circles tend to be relatively small and, depending on how broad your field is, it is likely that you will encounter the same reviewer over and over again. This reviewer will point out the same perceived flaws over and over again. This doesn't help you to get your paper in print.

If your goal is publication, address the review. Explain why their criticisms are incorrect, or edit the paper to fix the errors.

Answer 5

Is it ethical to re-submit a manuscript without addressing comments from a particular reviewer while asking the editor to exclude them?

There are two things here.
Should you resubmit without addressing comments. You shouldn't.
Even when submitting to a new Journal, I'll still prepare a rebuttal, even if it's for my personal use (although I won't be submitting). This assist with giving thought to reviewers comments/view/opinion. I need to be clear within myself what I'm addressing or why I'm not revising.

As regarding if you can request exclusion of certain reviewers, yes you can. However, not in the manner you outlined.

Some journals welcome proposing and opposing reviewers as part of their submission process. One simply propose or opposes based on discipline topic/methodology. Politely so. There's no space for personal attack!

I have opposed certain persons when submitting certain manuscript. For instance where I know certain persons equate critical theory to be same as critical realism. This isn't about the persons but simply because of the improper view they'll bring to the review.

---

This only address an aspect of your question. There are other nuances that warrants different responses and approaches.

Answer 6

There is no ethics involved here: just the regular review process. It is appropriate to exclude a referee if you can fully justify this exclusion with the editor.

Given this referee was selected by two other different editors means this referee is likely very qualified to provide an expert opinion, so you will need a strong argument to justify your case, which amounts to having a rebuttal to the referee ready at hand. Just stating “Please exclude X because we have a difference of opinion” will not get you anywhere with any reasonable editor.

Answer 7

Would it be considered unethical to submit the paper to a different journal without addressing the reviewer's comments?

No. There is no ethical obligation to address a referee's comments if you think doing so would not improve the paper.

Would it be considered unethical to submit the paper to a different journal while listing who we think the reviewer might be as an opposed reviewer stating that we have a conflicting approach to our particular area of research and feel they might not comment fairly?

That depends on whether you are proposing to lie by omission here or not.

It seems like the only basis for believing that Researcher X might not comment fairly is precisely because you think that (1) Referee #2 did not comment fairly and (2) Researcher X is Referee #2. If you are honest with the editor about this reasoning, then surely there is nothing unethical about this. Of course, I imagine the editor might not find this reasoning particularly convincing, but that's a different matter.

If, on the other hand, you intend to create the impression in the editor that your concern that Researcher X would not treat your manuscript fairly is based on something other than your belief that Researcher X = Referee #2, then this is in effect an attempt to deceive the editor (certainly it does not count as honest communication) and as such is indeed unethical.

Answer 8

I don't know if I'd say "unethical" because it isn't 'wrong'. Rather, unless you can prove that the assessment is false, I would simply say reconsider if you're right. They may be pointing out something legitimate. Any paper I submit, I send to a few coworkers in my field before I do, as they may have a fresher perspective than me.

Answer 9

I don't think it would be unethical to submit to another journal without addressing the criticism or to ask the journal to exclude a specific referee. Other answers seem to imply that it is your duty to do something about the flaw in your paper. I am not sure this is an imperative.

Let me explain. You are trying to publish a paper. I don't understand why your paper must be perfect. If it moves the state of the art forward, it is publishable. If some referee disagrees, it's just an opinion of that referee, and you don't owe anything to that referee.

Let me give a couple of historic examples. We all know Pauli as a greatest physicist. When Kronig suggested that Pauli's "two-valuedness not describable classically" is related to rotation of the electron, Pauli's criticism was devastating, and his arguments were very reasonable. As a result, Kronig did not publish the idea, although it is now generally accepted (I believe:-)).

Decades later, Pauli's criticism of Yang and Mills' work was harsh, and his arguments were very reasonable. Later work by others fixed the flaw of Yang-Mills' work and won Nobel prizes. Were Yang and Mills unethical to publish flawed work?

Answer 10

There is an unethical aspect to resubmitting the way you suggest. You are hiding important information from the editor of the journal to which you will submit, information that may (or may not) give an indication of a fundamental flaw in your article/research. What I propose is a simple thing: address the point raised by that reviewer, and reason in the article why you did x, decided y, or ignored z (etc., whatever is relevant in the case of the alleged defect, which was pointed on earlier). This will add another dimension to the article that you did not address before, and will also be more ethical.

Answer 11

If you believe that the reviewer is biased, or has conflicting interests, or that their viewpoint is not universal - it is legitimate to demand the editor to assigned another reviewer or to appeal the decisions. Most of the scientific journals have such appeal procedures put in place and the final rejection letter would be signed by a divisional editor or an assigned reviewer, usually a top-of-the-field scientist. So you need first check the specific policies of the journal in question, and try to follow them through to the end.

So, what seems to me unethical/questionable is not that you go to another journal, without taking all the luggage associated with the article, but that you do so before having exhausted all the options - it seems like an admission that there is indeed a problem with your research.

In practical terms, people certainly do gamble by submitting to as many journals as possible, until the paper is published. Refusing to do so would demonstrate your high moral standards, but might put you at a disadvantage in comparison to other scientists in your field.