How should one deal with criticism from formal superiors (advisors, reviewers) when they have misunderstood the criticized aspect of the work?

Question

EDIT: I already mentiond this in the last paragraph of the original question, but the most voted answer so far seems to ignore the point: This is explicitely not about the (frequent) case that the fault (directly or indirectly, e.g. by not having stated the point clear enough) lies with the one being criticized.I am fully aware of this and generally agree with the "the reviewer is always right even if they are wrong" mindset. But what to do in those cases where the failt actually lies with the critic ?. Not necessarily due to bad intentions or incompetence but due to them simpley not having allocated enough time for the review (which is common, given the heavy total load of work )

Common situation: Certain aspects of my work are criticized and changes are suggested: So far, so good and desirable—nothing helps more than constructive criticism.

However, in my experience, it is not uncommon that the reason for the criticism is the critic's lack of understanding or that they have not read all of the work thourougly enough.

This puts me in a dilemma. On the one hand, in my experience, expressing disagreement "from below to above" always causes a certain degree of tension and generally worsens interpersonal relationships (e.g., between supervisor and student). Reviewers may (even unconsciously) become even more biased against the paper than they already were. I know this from my own experience when I am in the "formally superior" position, e.g., when supervising bachelor’s theses. Despite all efforts to maintain well-intentioned objectivity "on equal footing," I notice how criticism from the "subordinate" makes them at least subconsciously less likeable to me.

On the other hand, I can't simply say: "Yes, of course you're right, I'll make the changes", especially when these are changes that I believe are counterproductive and, for example, would reduce the chances of the paper being accepted rather than improving them.

How should one handle this dilemma?

To preempt the most obvious objection: Yes, I am 100% aware that I, too, can be wrong, and that I may be the one not understanding the criticism. But that's not the point here. For the sake of this particular question, let's just assume that the misunderstanding does lie with the critics.

Answer 1

This is precisely analogous to the case where a reviewer misunderstands your point in a submitted paper.

And the reaction needs to be the same: if your reviewer, superior, or anyone else in the intended audience misunderstood your point, you need to make the point clearer.

This may mean proactively addressing potential criticisms, especially if the misunderstanding arises because "they have not read all of the work thoroughly enough" - while the reader of course needs to read your text carefully, as the author you need to make their life easy, so that at least issues that can easily pop up are already explicitly addressed in your text.

Answer 2

As a general rule, it's good to assume positive intent of anyone giving you feedback, and to look for value in any critique. So, often, even if a reviewer suggests a change you disagree with, if you think about it you may find there is a deeper issue the reviewer is bumping on, and another way to address that deeper problem. For example, a reviewer might say "in step 2 of your argument, you rely on X result, which does not apply in situation Y." That may be correct, but in your paper you are actually considering closely-related but unusual situation Z, in which X does apply, but you may not have explicitly pointed out the differences between Y and Z and that you are using Z in your paper. So in this case, you can respond with something like, "Thank you for your feedback; while I agree about situation Y, in fact I am in situation Z, and have clarified this point in the text."

For the purposes of this question, a more interesting scenario is one where the critic makes a point that is simply incorrect, and making any change to the paper would make it worse. This is an extreme situation, but can happen. For example, a critic could have misread what you wrote, and adding a clarification for their misreading would only add extra text and noise without helping the average reader of the paper. In this case, it is best to politely explain why you think your argument is correct as is. Sometimes, this might require doing extra work to convince the reviewer you are correct, even if you do not want to include this extra work in the actual paper. For example, a reviewer might say that Equation 3 does not follow from Equation 2. You could respond with a note showing step-by-step that Equation 3 does follow from Equation 2. This might be too technical to include in the original paper, especially if there are strict length requirements, but still could be part of the peer review process. There may also be the option to include results like this as part of a technical supplement to the paper, if you think it will be sufficiently interesting to other readers.

Answer 3

You need to approach them as fellow-learners when they are wrong. Some PhDs can get pretty sensitive to not being respected, so your language has to be couched in respect for their intelligence. Write back with the idea that they are smart enough to understand it (even if they aren't) and then you'll be teaching them as a superior. Sometimes that's just how power works.

You should probably try to get their position if they really don't get it.

Answer 4

I think your question is misconceived. The only circumstances (and circumstances that are completely unrealizable) in which your question makes sense in the form that you have put it, is that the paper is so perfect in all its aspects (typography, argument, presentation, referencing, etc) that no more could have been done by the author to improve it, and that had the reviewer only read it, then the mere effortless reading of it would have lead to the reviewer understanding and (probably) accepting it. That state of the world does not exist.

Moreover, the form into which you have tortured your question (and potential respondents) makes the question, as phrased, almost unanswerable.

It might have been easier and perhaps more fruitful to ask a very closely related question that omits the presumptive baggage of a perfect paper and imperfect reviewer. That question would be, "How might one respond to criticism that one feels is entirely undeserved", and the state of affairs that could lead to feeling that criticism is undeserved are more readily imaginable than those that you posit.

In answer to that question, which admittedly is my question and not the one you put, I would say, "Reconsider the (undeserved) criticism to see whether there is even the smallest glimmer of something that might be learnt from it. And if there is noting, learn to live with the criticism. In a full life, criticism that one feels is undeserved will be far from rare."

Answer 5

OP asks: "But what to do in those cases where the fault actually lies with the critic? Not necessarily due to bad intentions or incompetence but due to them simply not having allocated enough time for the review." [emphasis added]

I think the answer depends a little on OP's goals. Is the goal to convince this specific person, or is their misunderstanding an obstacle to something else that doesn't necessarily require their agreement (paper acceptance, passing a board review, etc.)? Both scenarios can be assisted by enlightening the reviewer, the later may also benefit from a procedural response.

As other answers have (correctly) emphasized, it's best to assume the good intentions of the reviewer, and that the reviewer is similarly situated as other audience members to the communication (e.g., if this reader doesn't have time, most of your readers won't have time). The response here is to improve your communication.

OP has already identified how the communication can be improved: They state several times in the question and in other comments that the reviewer is misunderstanding because they don't have time to thoroughly read the material. Unless OP can give them more time, they should accept this as a given. Their reviewer is competent in the subject matter and wants to provide a helpful review, but they are limited in the time they can give to the review. How can OP change their communication to help someone with limited time? There are many possibilities (e.g., restate something more plainly, include a summarizing figure, add a glossary, just make the thing shorter, etc.).

If OP is delivering some kind of communication to the reviewer, and they absolutely must get the buy-in from this reviewer, then this is the only option. All the reviewer will see is what they are given, so OP has to make it convincing to someone with little time.

Now, let's say that OP has done everything they can to edit and respond to the misunderstandings of the reviewer. If this is a situation where the reviewer doesn't have all the decision power, then OP can appeal to the person or body that does.

In the case of a peer-reviewed journal, this would be the editor. In this case, when responding to reviews you are speaking to the editor, not the reviewer.

• Highlight changes made in response to the review:
  • "Reviewer's first critique lies in a misunderstanding of X, I have clarified paragraph N to better outline X and included Figure Y."

Or,

• Explain that you carefully considered reviewer's suggestion, but declined to make a change:
  • "Reviewer requested a table outlining data series Q, however, this information is already shown in Figure Y and due to space limitations the exact numbers will be provided in the data supplement."

Finally, after all of the above—editing to make meaning more clear, explaining to the editor why changes were or weren't made—OP may raise their concerns with the editor. This message will be unique to their situation, so generalized advice is difficult. I'd advise sticking just to objective facts about how the review process had proceeded: "Reviewer A misstates several points (give specific examples) that reviewers B and C seemed to understand."

Outside of the peer-review process you may not have the anonymity of the reviewer, or the editor as an arbitrator, but the general advice is the same. If the reviewer is continually raising a point that you disagree with, just acknowledge that the criticism exists, what you've done to respond, and why you ultimately disagree.