Thanks for the replies. that sounds like there is hope at least! I should have made clear that it went to 4 reviewers. 2 Accepted it with very minor changes, the third made a very good point and I am rooting out papers at the mo to explain my methology but its the 4th that has come up with the greatest load of BS that you can imagine!!!! I don't mind at all them making suggestions etc (like reviewer 3 has) but you wouldn't believe the comments from the 4th reviewer. thanks a million for your replies. Hopefully it will be OK.

Thank you very much for your reply. I am working through the changes and have dug out the papers that the reviewer is quoting. None of them are relevant to my study. I am currently gathering together all the info that I can and then will (as you suggest) re-submit with a strong case to the editor.

Believe me, choice language has been used directed at this reviewer!! I agree that he is actually publishing in this area - some of the comments just make me think that.

Thank you!

Hi, Am new here so be gentle! I am submitting in 13 days. I have had one paper published and my second paper submitted. Its just come back from the reviewers and basically 2 have accepted it (minor editing) but one in particular has ripped it apart. Problem is, his/her comments make no sense. what do I do? they have quoted references for a completely different genus, they have quoted references for biofilm formation when its on survival in the gut. They have made comments like results and discussion are merged and should be separate when they are already separate and are not merged in the manuscript. Some of the comments don't actually make sense at all i.e. the English is so bad i can't make out what they are trying to say. The list is endless.

Could anyone advise what I am to do? My supervisor has gone to a conference and isn't back for 10 days so I am a bit stuck!

Thanks.