前天收到一个口碑还可以的期刊发来的rejection decision邮件，话说看到reject字眼没有什么感觉，毕竟被拒是投稿常态。可是，看完里面reviewer 2的意见（通过主编今天的回复，知道你同样来自于中国），俺不淡定了！我说哥们你能不胡乱瞎扯吗？ 没时间认真审稿，请你收到审稿邀请时直接拒掉，可否？虽然reviewer 1 给了非常积极的意见（多达5页），并建议修改后发表，可是您的几句非人话直接将俺打入了地狱。对于你的审稿态度，我只能呵呵了。。。
        由于人大经济论坛在国内经管领域的影响力，俺把发给主编的邮件贴出来（担心他不转给你），让你自己看看吧！

Dear Professor ...,

          Thank you so much for the review on my manuscript titled "............." I received the desicion on it this morning. However, I kindly ask your help in assessing the outcome of the review process.

        I carefully studied the review reports of the two reviewers. I appreciate the constructive comments of the first reviewer, and I particularly agree with his suggestions, which are very useful to modify this manuscript. However, after reading the review report of the second reviewer, I feel uncomfortable. I will give a few examples:

       I. From his review reports, I feel that he did not read the entire manuscript, but just read the front section. I am also a reviewer in some journals, such as Acadamy of Management Journal, Journal of Management, Journal of Product Innovation and Management and IMM. I provide my review reports only when I read all sections of the manuscript.

      2. For all comments of this reviewer (reviewer comments in bold). My co-authors and I have some different opinions:

    (1) page 2. from the cited papers -- based on the context, it seems it should be citing papers instead.

         In the fourth paragraph of page 2, we want to express the meaning that a paper was cited by other ones. After I discuss it with colleagues at the Stanford University and University of Twente,  we agree that it should be " a cited paper", not "a citing paper" as the second reviewer proclaimed.
     (2) page 2. 'have the approximate meaning' - this is incorrect. what the authors described here is the topic search, which cannot capture 'vocabularies that have the approximate meaning'

        Of course, there are so many different vocabularies to describe the same thing. Why did the second reviewer ask us to just use only one word "creativity" to describe the topic we study? The vocabularies, such as creative behavior, creative solutions/ ideas, creative ability, do not belong to this topic? I have difficulties seeing the value of this comment.
    (3)page 2. 'some noise papers should be deleted ...
    call for paper, manuscript submission instructions, advertisements of some publication...'
   I have been using the Web of Science for years, but don't think these types of 'noise papers' are part of the Web of Science. Authors, please stick to the facts.
       We did not say the types of “noise papers” are part of the Web of Science. Everyone who uses it knows its functions and what it is. We just named these “papers” “noise papers” which we extracted from this database, such as conference notices, special topic call for papers, manuscript submission instructions, advertisements of some publication, and so on. It appears that the second reviewer did not read the article carefully and did not really understand the meaning of our descriptions. Therefore, we do not understand the sentence “Authors, please stick to the facts”.   

(4)page 3. NoteExpress 2.0 - what is it? please provide a reference and provide a brief introduction to what it does. Do not assume the reader is familiar with anything you are familiar with.
        We do not see the meaning of this comment. NoteExpress 2.0 is the software used normally to analyze literature in Bibliometrics. We are surprised that a reviewer in the professional journal of ...., did not hear about this. When he read the common concepts in a paper of a field he is not familiar with, he does not ask the authors to explain any detail. We see this as an unreasonable proclaim.If this reviewer is not familiar with this field, I think he is not qualified as a reviewer.
(5)subsequent analysis has nothing new. k-core, co-word, and MDS have been routinely used by many researchers. The analysis based on Figure 1 cannot stand on its own.
       Here we strongly disagree with the reviewer. Obviously, the methods of k-core, co-word, and MDS are the appropriate tools that could be used to conduct our study. It is because of this advantage many scholars use them in their researches. If we use these excellent methods to solve our research problems, were we wrong? This is not an article that discusses research methods. Furthermore, why did this reviewer say “The analysis based on Figure 1 cannot stand on its own.” He did not provide any reasons for this. From this we conclude that he actually does not understand these methods.     

       I am honestly disappointed by this review. I have not ever received a review as poor as the review of reviewer 2. This review is not the high quality review I would expect from a high quality journal as .....

      I hope you can give us the opportunity to reconsider our paper and perhaps let a third reviewer assess our paper. We have the idea that the first reviewer was rather positive, and it would be difficult for us to accept a rejection based on the assessment of the second reviewer.

——————————————————————————————

      虽然今天主编为没有认真查看两个专家审稿意见而道歉，并且已经将其重新送审给第三个审稿人（赞一个速度），还是为你的态度感到无语！希望你以后为其他期刊审稿的时候，请用认真的态度对待！一篇论文从写作到投稿要经历几个月，然后再等待几个月的评审过程，如果你的文章被别人这么对待，你有何感想？