Negative reviewer comments on your research article

ing Depending on your temperament, you may first want to blow your steam, hit a punching bag, or simply fume and blame the world for the crappy reviewers that don’t understand a thing. Once you’ve gotten over it, remember again that you are a researcher, so research. Research the cause for each negative comment. Here are a few of the causes you might find.
​

1. Y our English is not up to snuff.  It seemed clear at the time, but now you even wonder if you are the one who wrote this crap! How many times did you rewrite before sending your paper to the journal? Obviously not enough times. So blame yourself, rewrite, and apologize for that lack of clarity. (Don’t promise you’ll never be unclear again. You will.)
2. The reviewer’s English is not up to snuff. You tried to write like Proust, long ramblings sentences that contained enough detail to discourage the most eager reader. You are a master in handling complexity within the boundaries of two periods. You have nested your main clause inside a cluster of subordinate clauses, each with their own dependencies. The reviewer did not recognize your genius. They want simple sentences that they can easily understand as they are often pressed for time and review your masterpiece for free anyway. So humble yourself, become a Hemingway instead of a Proust. Rewrite in simpler sentences that will clarify what you mean, and apologize for the lack of clarity.
3. Your Science is not up to snuff. They poked holes in your not-so-tight reasoning. And they are right! Gee, despicable you! How dare you pollute the world of science with your imperfect thinking. Don’t you hate it when people are right and you’re not? Grow up. That’s what you did for many years, and it’s not over yet. Take it in stride. Thank the reviewer profusely for making you a better researcher, and protecting Science and others from your errors. Do what they want you to do, if reasonable. If not, then argue politely whilst still admitting that they made a good point which got all your attention. Plead that your contribution, although not as gargantuan as you would have liked, is still sufficient to publish in the interest of moving science forward at a faster pace. Elephants give birth every four years, but you are all for giving Science its daily egg.
4. Their Science is not up to snuff. They think they are poking holes with their red pencils in what turns out to be a ten inch thick armored steel plate. It is a sad world out there. Don’t cry for me, gelatina. You are weak, and I am strong. So defend yourself in the most civil manner. Apologize for not making truth self-evident. Clarify a paragraph. Add a few missing references. Send fifty more pages in supplementary material (scientific filibuster). Whatever you do, do not complain to the editor who happens to have chosen that reviewer, and it would look bad on him or her. And the next time you send a paper to that journal, suggest your own list of reviewers.