======= Date Modified 03 32 2009 17:32:35 =======
Hi all,

So a few days ago I got a decision regarding an article I submitted, and the decision was to make revisions and then re-submit.

Now, this is fine as i realise that its rare to just get an outright acceptance.

My problem is this however: The two sets of comments I got back from reviewers are saying pretty, in fact, quite significantly different things. The first reviewer was very harsh and seemed to take offense to the actual argument I was making rather than the way I was making it or 'getting there'. Reviewer one kept assuming I was a 'he' which didn't help, but nevermind. The second reviewer I felt provided constructive criticism, insightful suggestions that I could follow to create a better paper, and generally was quite helpful and to the point unlike like reviewer one.

Anyway, this is the first time i've submitted to a 'proper' journal, and i'm not sure which feedback to follow. Shall I just make the changes based on reviewer two's feedback and see what happens? But then reviewer one will probabaly still say the same thing. In the comments letter, one review says major revisions, another says minor revisions before resubmission.

Advice anyone?

Welcome to the wonderful world of Scientific Research!!!! I guess it really depends upon whether you feel reviewer one actually has a valid point and agree with him. If you don't and you believe that you can justify your argument and the criticisms he makes of it, then I would say go with reviewers two's recommendations, resubmit and see what happens. In my experience, both industry and academic, there will always be someone who disagrees with you and criticises your work...it doesnt mean that they are right!!! If your argument is valid and (which judging by reviewer two's comments you do) and are able to defend it, then I stay stick to your guns.

Yes, go with the reviewer's comments which make the most sense to you and fit with your article. You will need to write a covering letter, so explain in that why you have not made the changes the first reviewer asked for - justify yourself striongly. Incorporate some of their points if possible, to mollify them somewhat. You should be fine as long as you can show why you've done what you've done.

It may be good just to acknowledge reviewer 1's standpoint e.g. I am approaching it like this, others approach it like that, but this is why my approach is better. - although I am social sciences so I would back all this up with a million references, I don't know if you do that in other subjects !?