The Philosophers' Cocoon

A safe and supportive forum for philosophers.

Owned & Moderated by Marcus Arvan (University of Tampa)

Contact: marvan@ut.edu

Blog mission & moderation policy

IMPORTANT NOTE on how to ensure anonymity in commenting
Job-Market Reporting Thread (2025-26)
Job-Market Discussion Thread (2025-26)

recent posts

about

Handling an R&R with 2 positive reports but 1 vague negative report?

In our new “how can we help you?” thread, a reader asks,

I was hoping to get some advice on an R&R I recently received. The journal provided comments from three reviewers. Two of the reports offer substantial, detailed, and constructive feedback, giving me a clear path forward for revision.

However, the third reviewer’s report is a bit of a challenge. Based on the tone and general nature of the comments, it strongly suggests a recommendation for rejection (though this isn’t explicitly stated). The report only provides very general and somewhat ambiguous criticisms, without specific, actionable guidance on how the manuscript might be improved. This is understandable, of course, if their overall recommendation was to reject.

So, I’m not sure how to best address this third reviewer’s feedback in my revised manuscript and response letter. I see two main approaches:

Attempt to infer the reviewer’s underlying concerns from the general comments and make revisions based on that interpretation.

Focus the revision primarily on addressing the substantive and detailed comments from the other two reviewers, while politely explaining in the response letter that the third reviewer’s feedback was too general to provide a basis for specific textual changes.

I’m leaning toward the second option. The first approach feels overly speculative, and I’m also worried about its potential risks: it might require revising sections that the other two reviewers specifically approved of, and it could also detract from the paper’s main thesis.

I’d be really grateful for any insights or advice from others who have navigated a similar situation.

I had a paper like this a while back and more or less pursued OP’s second option. The paper was accepted after the R&R, and it seems like the editors more or less ignored the vague negative report, which I appreciated.

Do other readers have any helpful tips/experiences to share?

Posted in

4 responses to “Handling an R&R with 2 positive reports but 1 vague negative report?”

  1. rabbit

    I would suggest a third option. Make substantial revisions to the paper based on the actionable clear feedback from the other referees. Then, in the letter to the referees, try your best to address the concerns of the third reviewer. Put differently, I would not start making major changes to the paper on the basis of wild guesses as to what the third reviewer might have been thinking, but nonetheless, try explain in the letter how the revisions might respond to their concerns.

    I have a different perspective from Marcus on the second option. If the editor solicited a third review, this suggests they were on the fence about the paper. There’s also a chance the paper may get sent back to the critical referee after your revision. If this happens you want to try your best to make a good impression with this referee. Sometimes you can change a critical referee’s view of the paper just by being very thankful, polite and constructive in your response letter. So I would not advise writing anything in the letter that suggests you ignored the third review, even if that’s what you did in practice. If you really think it’s necessary, you could include a note privately to the editor explaining that you had a hard time interpreting the concerns of reviewer 3 but tried your best.

    Compare options in terms of likely costs. Writing a response (even if it’s kind of BSed) to the third referee costs you some extra time; saying you could not make changes based on their feedback raises a chance of rejection if the referee is upset and/or if the editor thinks you did not take the feedback seriously.

    Reply
  2. Frequent Ref

    I agree with Rabbit. Don’t ignore the negative reviewer, but don’t revise the paper based on recommendations you speculatively impute to them, either. Both are too risky.
    You may try responding to the referee’s concerns by attempting to persuade them as to why you think there is another way to read your work on which those concerns are less worrying.

    Reply
  3. Laurence B. McCullough

    Rabbit makes the very important point that you resubmission may go to all three reviewers. It is always good to have a reviewer, especially a (somewhat) negative one, see that you have responded to his or her comments. Responding to all three reviewers will also impress the editor that you have taken the peer-review process seriously, always a good message to send.

    When I have been in this situation, I have responded to the detailed reviews first and made changes. It has often been the case that some of these changes can be referred to in your response to the third reviewer, in which you can say that reviewer #N made a similar point and then refer to that change.

    Finally, one can write that you will welcome the third reviewer’s comment but find it difficult to respond to inasmuch as it does not ask for specific changes.

    Your letter to the editor should go through each review and explain how you have made changes and where and, if you have not made changes, explain why. This can sometimes satisfy the editor, who might then accept the paper, obviating the need for the editor to send the resubmission to the reviewers for re-review.,

    Reply
  4. chimer

    I second all these suggestions. It may be fully justified to sort of ignore R3. But it is prudential to follow the above suggestions, if you really want to play safe.

    When I was more junior and received R&R, I have always done my best to respond to every review (even every concern of each) and this strategy has never failed me. Now that I have more publications under my belt and can more afford to dismiss some concerns, so I go more into Marcus’s direction. But the former strategy is safer (and usually doesn’t cost all that much extra time).

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading