Reviewer dis's whole research direction is not just reviewing my manuscript. What should I do?

link ：https://www.zhihu.com/answer/2480215746

edit ： Deep learning and computer vision

Statement ： Just for academic sharing , Invasion and deletion

author ： My name is little lemon
https://www.zhihu.com/question/484035578/answer/2109703807

One of the reviewers of my article wrote freely 5000 More than words , It's longer than my body ,99 A question , second instance 100 A question , By a reviewer , Every sentence is finding fault , Delve into the background and details, as well as the context , How to put it? , At that time, life was worse than death , But I still decided to convince people with virtue , Finally, it won the unanimous approval of reviewers and editors .

Sometimes we really can't ask reviewers to be completely familiar with their own fields and research , Unless it is a very coincident research direction , That is, colleagues are enemies, and there is no way . If you are a self righteous reviewer , When he talks about the general direction, we will tell him the general direction , When he talks about details, let's talk about details , Don't be afraid of reviewers talking about him , Because it is the editor who makes the final decision , The Editor takes the argument between you into consideration , At this time, don't be taken away by the mood of the reviewer , You have to believe in , And have confidence , You are more familiar with this field than him , Even if he directly despises your field and direction , There is no evidence of empty talk , Only let the editor directly pass Lose his opinion .

therefore , Don't worry about , To have confidence , Tell the truth , Even if he doesn't listen , The referee is also listening , Right ？

author ： Cao Yue
https://www.zhihu.com/question/484035578/answer/2554431573

See this problem , It reminds me of our article that was ill fated Cross-Iteration batch norm, I haven't been able to submit my manuscript for several times , The last shot CVPR I met a reviewer in the process , Come up and attack the whole direction （BN series） No value . In this case, we can only learn from Area Chair Starting with , We are rebuttal In reply to such a sentence ："Reviewer #x appears to have penalized our paper because he/she is philosophically against the batch normalization series of methods." "We have made every effort to resolve Reviewer #x's issues but are concerned that the reviewer will continue to oppose our paper only on philosophical grounds.", We want to express a similar meaning, but in the end this sentence is made by Steve Lin Touch up , Successful persuasion AC Finally received . So far, I still feel interested in reading this sentence .

author ： Volume,
https://www.zhihu.com/question/484035578/answer/2487765359

Bad luck , Hit a hostile reviewer , The review comments attack the whole direction , Even longer than the original , There's no way . Some areas , It is controversial , The views of the two groups are extremely opposed , There is not enough research evidence to enable one party to completely convince the other , It's really possible to happen . in the first place , Both sides are adhering to their own truth ; both , Whether a certain direction is feasible , Is it worth further study , It is also a major event related to the future funding and development of our research group .

In this case , Personally feel , I can only patiently reply to the review comments . Generally, there is more than one reviewer , If the opinions of the two reviewers differ greatly , Most editors will invite a third reviewer , It is still possible to hire manuscripts . If you are finally rejected , That can only be transferred to other magazines , And consider in cover letter It is suggested to exclude reviewers . It's not that bad , Meet hostile reviewers every time .

author ： Yan Feng
https://www.zhihu.com/question/484035578/answer/2098110313

The reviewer is not professional .

The original intention of reviewing manuscripts is to help improve the quality of manuscripts , Instead of criticizing . Give priority to constructive feedback , Of course, if there are big logical loopholes or design problems, we must point out .

Blind guess is in the hands of your opponent , Can contact editor Communicate and see , It is also important to remember to choose not to submit a list when submitting a manuscript .

Another possibility is that it was sent to the industry leaders , The kind of giant , It's possible that everyone is a weak chicken .

author ： Scientific research residue
https://www.zhihu.com/question/484035578/answer/2182076434

I just received a paper ,8 At the beginning of this month, the reviewer gave only three comments , The first one is about keyword ranking . He said directly that my result was wrong , Unbelievable . In fact, he didn't read my paper carefully , None of his opinions is right ……

But I found that my writing ability is not good , Logic is not straightened out , Cause he didn't see clearly .

I changed it for two weeks , Replied 2000 words . Receive directly after submission , Now it's all online …… I was stunned .

So no matter what the reviewers' opinions are , Seriously correct , Maybe there will be a turnaround . After all, he didn't refuse the manuscript ！

author ： Anonymous users
https://www.zhihu.com/question/484035578/answer/2481930105

First of all, it depends on the journal you vote for , If it is a very general journal , The level of the reviewer you are looking for can be imagined . I guess the situation in the question may be like this ？ In this case, consider investing in other journals . If you invest in top journals , At this time, the editor / The deputy editor in chief also allowed the reviewers to dis One way , So this thing is more interesting .

secondly ,dis One research direction is unfair , Such comments are of no value , There's no way to answer , You can ask to change the reviewer .dis Published references are also unreasonable , Especially the top references . This is a good reason to change reviewers . You can talk to the editor / Associate editor in chief argue Reviewer .

Last , If the reviewer dis It's really right ,ta Can find nature science The big problem of the last article , Then these problems are enough to make ta I also sent a few articles nature science,ta There is no need to disclose such valuable ideas in the review opinions . So guess ta dis Certainly not recognized by the mainstream academic circles , Therefore, it is recommended to ask for a change of reviewer .

author ： Anonymous users
https://www.zhihu.com/question/484035578/answer/2186380733

Some reviewers are pure paratroopers , There are a lot of output opinions, not even a constructive one .

Once, there was a big group of brothers next door, but they were angry and directly attacked , Post all of your own research lab pub, Back to how many years our group has worked inside and outside , You are teaching me how to do things ？

I think I'd better browse first , If his opinion is valuable , You can reply appropriately , According to the revision returned .

However, if the reviewer is too parachutist, he will be at the top of the meaningless point , Well, I suggest the editor change to a new reviewer , If you really can't do it, just change a journal , If you don't stay here, you will stay here .

* END *

If you see this , Show that you like this article , Please forward 、 give the thumbs-up . WeChat search 「uncle_pn」, Welcome to add Xiaobian wechat 「 woshicver」, Update a high-quality blog post in your circle of friends every day .

↓ Scan QR code and add small code ↓