Lessons I learned from a "Nasty" Reviewer

It was only my second attempt to submit to a journal. My first attempt, as a novice, was quite successful, as my article (Work Values among Lebanese Workers) was accepted after a couple of rounds. The second submission (a case study) to the Case Research Journal was extremely more challenging.

The submitted case went to three reviewers. Of course, in a double-blind review process, you wouldn't know the identity of the reviewers, and they wouldn't know yours. The first round of reviews ended up with one sympathetic reviewer who really loved the case. Addressing an ethical dilemma facing a company in Lebanon was apparently gripping. He/she was fascinated by the context and the decision focus of the case, just offering a couple of helpful tips. For the most part, he/she was sold on the idea. Minor revisions requested. Wow!

The second reviewer was more challenging. From what I remember now (it's been more than fifteen years), he/she offered a long list of suggestions. He/she required significant departures from what was already written, demanding a series of requested changes. Major revisions requested. Tough? For sure, but doable.

The third reviewer was the "nasty" one, or so I thought at the time. He/she did not like the case in the first place. The case was "too obvious" and "too predictable." It "did not offer much to potential students reading the case," and the "suggested remedies" were "totally uninspiring." I thought the review was entirely malicious, and I started to construct conspiracy theories. A case about the third world perhaps did not interest an ethnocentric "first-world" reviewer? Or, could it be that the reviewer did not like how some of the ethical arguments were presented, especially that they grounded in the local culture? Or perhaps, he/she was turned off by the fact that this was -clearly- written by Global South scholars for whom English is not the first language. The recommendation to the editor was clear. REJECT.

The editor faced a dilemma of his own: one positive recommendation, another negative one, and a third in-between. The editor gave us the benefit of the doubt and allowed us to submit a revision where we had to take care of all the changes requested by all reviewers. We took on the challenge.

After spending a very long time on revising the manuscript, we submitted what I then thought to be a slam-dunk case. We took care of all points raised by the reviewers, especially the third reviewer. I was expecting an acceptance after this second round. What more could be done?

Nay. The second set of reviews was disappointing. The first reviewer accepted the case -with minor modifications requested. The second reviewer had additional comments but was more positive. The third reviewer became furious, apparently by the editor's decision to allow us to revise. The review was borderline cruel, including a statement that I will never forget addressing the editor as if it was too much for him/her to address the authors directly: "please tell the author(s) that there is no room for such a case in our journal." Our journal! What? I was astonished and felt abandoned.

The editor, nevertheless, gave us another opportunity to revise. The case got better and better. We ended up with two positive recommendations from the first and second reviewers, and a third angry reviewer who never conceded. One of the first two reviewers almost begged the editor to "not send this to me again as I have already accepted an earlier draft of this case as is". The paper must have undergone five or six iterations before it was finally accepted, as the editor -eventually- went along with the first two reviewers. (Link to the case abstract here)

So what did I learn from this "nasty" reviewer?

First and foremost, I learned to become a more compassionate reviewer. I occasionally review for journals in my field, and I always put myself in the shoes of the author. What would I want to hear from a reviewer if my submission is not up to their standards? Granted, I sometimes receive manuscripts that I want to reject –on the spot- with a note, "why are you wasting my time?" but I never actually do that. I offer constructive comments urging the author to work on carefully reviewing their manuscripts before submitting them in the future.

I also learned that if the editor likes my idea and its potential, he/she will work with me on developing it. Yes, I faced editors who would not be willing to go the extra mile with me. But I also came across other editors who were willing to work with my co-authors and me on moving forward an idea that was undeveloped at the first submission. To those editors, I am forever indebted.

Another learning point is that I don't have to get all three reviewers on my side for my manuscript to get accepted (journal guidelines may differ on this point, but generally, I believe this is correct). In our responses to the third reviewer, we carefully -and politely- addressed his/her concerns hoping they would understand how we took all points into consideration. It did not work with the third reviewer, but it worked with the editor who evidently thought we addressed all substantive concerns. Of course, politeness -even with an impolite reviewer- is always necessary.

I am not sure I would still call the reviewer “nasty” after all those years. I actually learned a lot throughout this process. I remember, for example, that I became more assertive in how I write. The reviewer was turned off by the frequency by which I used the words "may", “might", or “perhaps” and made this clear in the review. The manuscript definitely improved further and further with every resubmission. There are many other learning points, I'm sure, but those are now lost in memory. So, here you go my dear reviewer, thank you!