Responding to referees - part 2

In an earlier post I discussed how you should target the journal editor when you respond to referee reports, since ultimately they have the final decision on whether to accept your manuscript.

Of course, having favourable referee reports will make it much easier for them to accept your article. So, how do you convince a reluctant referee to change their mind and recommend publication of your article?

In theory, peer review is an objective process that judges the scientific merits and accuracy of a manuscript. If you address all of the referees' scientific criticisms, then they should have no choice but to recommend publication.

 

Unfortunately, referees are humans with subjective opinions, so whether they like you can be just as important as whether your work is correct. How can you make a hostile referee like you?

Here is an entertaining video of Chris Voss discussing negotiation techniques. While responding to referees is not as high stakes as hostage negotiations, his central idea - showing empathy for your adversary - is equally applicable. In crafting your response, you should keep two important questions in mind:

1. Why did the referee respond?

It's not compulsory to review articles; each referee has chosen to take the time to write a report, even though they probably had more pressing tasks to do. Identifying why the referee responded to the editor's request will help you figure out what they want to see in your response. 

I can think of four reasons why referees choose to review: 

(i) The topic of your paper was of interest

(ii) Felt obliged due to having recently published an article in the journal

(iii) As a favour for the editor, with whom they have some personal connection

(iv) CV building by refereeing for a higher impact journal.

Did I miss any?

2. What does the referee want to see in your response?

Make it obvious to the referee that you read their report and thought carefully about what they had to say. Summarise (label) their thoughts and even copy (mirror) their phrasing at times. Ideally every point they raise should lead to some change (improvement) to the manuscript. 

We all like to be right and hate being proven wrong. Do not ignore or dismiss any of their comments. Try to agree with what they are saying if possible (if not to the letter then at least in spirit).

Note I am not saying that you need to give in to all of their demands. The aim is to show the referee that you empathise with them and understand their perspective.