I have a paper under review. Two of the reviewers have accepted the paper. The third reviewer is ......This is the first time that I met such a blind reviewer. Most of his questions are superficial and they have answers in my paper. It is just his careless review that makes him did not find it. For example, he asked me where the shear stress is measure. However, the definition is just in the text and the Table. In another Table, I compare my date with others and I just call my date as "present". This is very common and the author's study is always called as "present". But he did not find it and asked me aggressively that why there is no date of mine in that Table... He asked me why I just present others' date without mine. Also, he criticizes me that the error in a Figure is 10MPa... Dear God, please give him a new pair of eyes. The error is not as big as 10MPa. He just match the wrong date. He may compare my date in a position with the reference date in another position. Also, he forces me to cite papers......I just sent emails and complain about the reviewer 3. I also ask whether it is possible to accept the paper by finding one more reviewer(If 3 accept and 1 reject, I feel this is more convincing...) However, When I contact with the EIC, the editor told me that: Once I have such request again, he will reject my paper.... That is all his reply. Nothing else... He did not even go into this issue and just conclude that..... My advisor just asked me to bear it. But I just try to find some support here. I have publicized 6 journal papers (IF 2-4) and I am a PhD student in Aerospace. My research is finite element methods. Thank you.
closed as unclear what you're asking by Fred Douglis, Shake Baby, Coder, user3209815, henning Jul 21 '17 at 7:21
Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
I get frustrated too if a paper is poorly written or does not follow 'standard' convention. There are no 'blind reviewers, assuming the venue is reputable. You only have reviewers who gave up on your paper because it is poor or not interesting or things that should be there are not there. Other things that annoy me are grammar mistakes, and poor writing practices.
Now calm down. Let it sit for a while. After you are rational, then revise your paper accordingly. Address the reviewer's comments and make it clearer. Ask yourself, why did the reviewer get frustrated at this point? Presentation errors are the easiest to fix. Try addressing comments that ask you to prove X is true, and your only answer is, I'm not smart enough!