How to survive reviewers' comments. No, it's a question.

At times, critique could be mistaken as criticism, even though it’s not meant to be. Still, even critique is difficult to deal with. 

With time, I learned to ask “What is the intention behind this comment?” to avoid unnecessary arguments. 

I don’t guarantee that it always works.

For example, when I receive deeply critical reviewer feedback on a paper, it triggers immediate psychological responses that can have an intense impact on me. Is it normal that academic feedback leads to such an emotional response? Probably not. But we take it personally.  

I think what makes it difficult, especially as a first (or last) author, is that this project has been your day and night for years. For years, you have thought about every single aspect, every experiment, every figure, word, reference…

Then, there is the issue of the power dynamic. 

The power of anonymity

I think reviewer anonymity is a practice that not everyone agrees on. Here are some opinions I have heard over the years, to the question “As a reviewer, do you prefer to remain anonymous?” :

+ I just go ahead and sign my name anyway.

+ Yes, otherwise the authors will come after me!

+ I don’t care. 

+ If my name is revealed, I will be “nicer” if I’m reviewing a big shot PI. I’m not risking my career.

+ If my name is revealed, this will pressure me to do a good job and be more respectful.

The last two arguments seem to contradict each other. If the reviewer is being “nice” (which is definitely the wrong word for it) then they are not doing a good job at all, they are not properly assessing and critiquing the manuscript. 

Here is what makes the difference: open peer review reports. Usually, they are strictly only available to the authors (and editors). If the reports AND the names of the reviewers are revealed, then I agree with the last opinion: this will probably pressure them to give a solid review.

I think this is the way ⬆. 

Weeding out the reviewer’s emotions

Every review is not the same, these are just people after all, like you and me. They probably have better things to do than to write this review without any sort of incentive whatsoever.

As an author (and hopefully with the help of the editor), you have to unsee the unnecessary negativity and find the constructive feedback. 

Focus on the useful things.

There is also the distinction between… 

- A comment about a point you “forgot” to mention (you know, the one you DID in fact mention in the paper). This is actually great. Just point it out.

…and:

- A comment on how adding a 6-month long experiment would significantly improve the paper. Yes, now you are allowed to panic.

Still, for some reason, both these comments hit with the same intensity when you first read the review. Maybe it also has something to do with reading all these comments back to back as you impatiently scroll through the report.

So, how do we deal with it?

It is a good idea to emotionally distance yourself from your project. Try to reframe this criticism as an opportunity to improve your work. After advice from wiser people, I have found that giving myself a couple of days of “off time” after reading the reviews changes my mindset. It allows a fresh look to comments, without the gradual buildup of defensive anger, self-doubt and potential despair.

The problem is bigger than a round of peer-review though. As researchers, we are continuously faced with harsh feedback that may have long-term psychological impacts. Most of the time with no tools to deal with them. We need to insist on having access to institutional support mechanisms, to protect our mental health… 

… and to survive reviewers’ comments.