Responding to a reviewer error after rejection?

In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

Is it possible, or generally considered acceptable, to reply to a referee's comments if (i) the referee recommended rejection, (ii) the referee's recommendation was based on an obvious misinterpretation or factual error, and (iii) the journal acted on the referee's recommendation?

Background: I submitted a manuscript responding to author A, and a referee claimed that I had attributed a view to A that A does not hold. But A does hold the relevant view, and my statement of A's view is provably equivalent to A's. (Indeed, my statement of A's view is barely even paraphrased.) It was clear to me that the referee had not read the relevant passages of A's work before writing their report, even though I identified these passages for them in a footnote. I am concerned that the same referee will be invited by other journals to review my manuscript and will once again recommend rejection if they are not made aware of this error.

Good question. I seem to recall hearing of one example of someone who raised an objection like this to an editor and was able to get the editor to reconsider the rejection and send out the paper to another reviewer. But, I'm not sure whether it's generally advisable to do something like this, and I've never tried to do it myself.

What do readers think? Do any readers with relevant experience, either as authors or as editors, have any helpful insights to share?

Comments

[Hermias]

I wouldn’t bother. There are other journals. Just psychologically, not many people are going to react by admitting their error and changing course, they’ll just think “wow this author can’t take it, look how triggered they must be to write this giant paragraph”. Getting a paper rejected for reasons you think are dumb is just par for the course I’m afraid.

[just me, man]

I think it would be wise to walk away from THAT journal. I just had an experience where there is strong evidence the referees did not read my paper carefully - even an important number in the paper they expressed incorrectly. Go figure?! But, I have been at this long enough to know that the editor did not just blindly follow the advice of the referee. So even if the ref. is attributing the wrong view to you or to someone else, telling the editor is unlikely to change the verdict. Either make clear in the paper why your interpretation is correct (even more clearly than before), or take your chances with a different journal

[Douglas W. Portmore]

If it's a particularly egregious error, then it may be worth pointing out to the editor. But you should keep all the following in mind: (1) the editor reads the paper themself, (2) reviewers often include comments that are for the editor's eyes only in addition to those comments that they've allowed the editor to pass on to the author, (3) the editor often doesn't agree with everything that the reviewers have to say about the paper, (4) the editor doesn't have the time to explain to the author which points from the reviews that they do and don't agree with, and (5) the editor doesn't simply act on the reviewer's recommendation. Rather than simply acting on a reviewer's recommendation, the editor decides for themself whether to accept the paper based on their own reading of the paper and their take on all the comments that they've received from the reviewers (including some that you may not have seen).

[anon]

I think the main consideration here is that the editor rejected the manuscript. Sometimes going after an editor for this can work, but odds are low.

I have been in a similar situation before - where a referee was just really obviously wrong about how to understand a text. I got an R&R, explained myself, but the referee just doubled down in their next set of comments. I did keep going since the fact that I wasn't rejected gave me some hope.

Then, after the second revision and resubmission, it seemed my paper ended up with a new referee and it was accepted. I share this just to emphasize that when a referee seems to be wrong about something in a clear-as-day way that can be demonstrated by quoting a few sentences from an article, it can still be an uphill struggle.

[don't do it!!]

Never worth it. I once simply pointed out how bad the referee report was ... (single report at a prestigious journal). This person egregiously mistranslated a Greek phrase in support of their opposition to the paper, the rest of the report was unintelligible. I wrote to editor and just suggested that they not use this person as a referee again; that the quality of the report was not in keeping with the quality of the journal, but of course I understand that they should default to the recommendation of the referee, etc. The editor was nice but stated that the person came recommended. So even that I kind of regretted, just I felt like I had painted myself to some degree as desperate and bitter. I don't want to get a reputation for being desperate and bitter.

Just let it go and move on.

[Happens often]

In my experience, this has happened a number of times to me, with different journals. Each time I wrote a letter of appeal to the editor, it hasn't worked out (and I'm told it'll rarely work).

In fact, I'm contesting one now because the reviewer claims I misinterpret 2 philosophers. What the reviewer doesn't know is that I work with these two people. Both have read my paper, both say that the reviewer's interpretation is wrong, and there's sections/footnotes in their respective papers which explicitly rejects the view that the reviewer attributes to them.

So, I think there's not much one can do except to move on & submit to another general. Perhaps add in more evidence (e.g. direct quotes) that you are interpreting the person's view correctly.

[Yujin Nagasawa]

I agree with the comment by "just me, man." Editors don’t make editorial decisions based solely on reviewers' comments. Instead, they evaluate the feedback and recommendations while assessing the paper's overall quality and fit. There are many other journals where the paper could be submitted, so it's unnecessary to protest or attempt to overturn a decision that has already been made.

[Frustrated Junior]

As a junior person who has both been on the receiving end of this sort of shenanigans several times and served in an editorial capacity at a journal, I truly cannot understand why the profession is so bad in this particular way.

Suppose I receive a manuscript and solicit a referee report that recommends rejection on the basis of an incompetent mistake. Then

(1) I have done a poor job of selecting a referee, and I should be a bit embarrassed. Honestly, I would briefly apologize to the author of the ms for the poor quality of the report in the decision letter. This would take me an additional 30 seconds.

(2) If the report is incompetent, then I should not use it to justify my decision. Now, if I could tell that the paper was worth rejecting independent of this report, I should not have sent it out. If I'm basing my verdict on the referee reports, and I think it's normative to have two reports, I should get a third report before I decision the paper. If the one of the other reports recommended rejection for not-incompetent reasons, I should mention this in my decision letter. This would take me an additional 30 seconds.

(3) I have never handled a paper where any referee wrote anything in the comments to me that would have changed my verdict about a paper. If someone did, I would mention this in my decision letter, which would take 30 seconds.

(4) Douglas Portmore, above, writes "the editor doesn't simply act on the reviewer's recommendation. Rather than simply acting on a reviewer's recommendation, the editor decides for themself whether to accept the paper based on their own reading of the paper and their take on all the comments that they've received from the reviewers." To some extent this is true and necessary, but also the whole reason we solicit referee reports is that we regard ourselves as less expert relative to the content of an article than the referees. I have in the past had papers rejected on two accept recommendations. This strikes me as epistemically blameworthy behavior from journal editors, especially if they then do not explain the grounds for the rejection. If you think you know better than the referees and are going to decision the paper on the basis of your own judgment instead of theirs, just decision the paper without soliciting the reports. That's faster for everyone involved.

[anon]

My experience roughly aligns with what people are saying here -- bad reports happen, but it's probably best just to move on -- BUT, I will also relay the following anecdote.

I know of someone who submitted to a tippy top history journal, and got the paper rejected on the basis of a confused referee report. This person pointed out, to the editor, that the report was confused, and the editor agreed. The paper was eventually accepted. So, some editors seem to be responsive to this sort of thing.

[JDF]

More to the point, in your next submission at the next journal, why not just quote the philosopher rather than just barely paraphrasing them to avoid this issue?

[It works sometimes]

I have done it once, at a mid-tier journal. I did not think it would be effective and did not really intend for the journal to reconsider the reviewer's ultimate assessment (My aim was to point out that the journal should never again use the reviewer to assess work since the mistake struck me as beyond the acceptable level of misreading, and clearly so). The editor apparently agreed, and the journal decided to publish the article.

[Hohenlohe]

I don't know.
I received only one comment from the reviewers and it was quite short (142 words). He pointed out that I was ''superficial'' or that my statements ''are not generally accepted''. Or... that ''the relevance to (censored) logic remains unexplained and unjustified''.

Okay, maybe... or maybe not, but you don't argue. You give the impression that you don't bother to argue your claims for an paper that doesn't matter to you. What's the point of the peer reviewer, then, a tautological formalism?

But the errors were noticeable, for example, on the ''relevance of logic'', it's obvious that he was wrong because i'm clarified it in 3 non-consecutive footnotes.

*The ''(censored)'' stands for Hegel... Hegel Logic.