This post is a companion to How can reviewer comments improve your work? It focuses on the function of peer review in journal processes and in validating the quality of published work. The other post focuses more on the editorial function.
In situations where scarce resources are being allocated, peer review ensures that those decisions are made by people who share a set of values about what counts as knowledge, rigour, and so on.
In the context of journal and monograph publishing, only so many things can be published in this journal issue, or by this publisher. Peer review provides the editor or editorial board (who are probably also peers) with expert advice on the quality and suitability of your manuscript for this particular publishing outlet.
The person who wrote the detailed review of your manuscript is probably not the person making the decision about whether to publish your paper. Their primary purpose is to provide the editor(s) or editorial board with detailed and expert advice.
You receive copies of the reviewers comments so that you might give them serious consideration and improve your work. Doing so may or may not have any direct relevance to getting published with this journal/publisher. The note from the editor should make this clear.
Other evaluation processes also value the fact that your work has been through peer review and been considered worthy of publication. The fact that several experts in your field have read your work and agreed on its quality and significance guards against important decisions being made based on the idiosyncratic interpretations of your local colleagues, who may or may not be knowledgeable in your specialty. (see Peer reviewed journal articles and monographs in the academic evaluation process)
It also indicates to non-academic users of your research that the work is generally accepted by your peers and not just your idiosyncratic opinion on the subject. They may know little about appropriate methods and so on and rely on the fact that experts in your field reviewed and accepted your work as evidence that it meets the appropriate standards. (see What is the point of publishing peer-reviewed articles if you care about changing things out there in the world?)
I’ve written more about how peer review works in scholarly publishing, and provided practical guidance for authors and reviewers, in Peer Review (A Short Guide) published on 15 November 2019.
Related posts:
How can reviewer comments improve your work?
Your vision guides the writing and the revision
Why questions are useful in feedback
Edited and recategorized Sept 24, 2015. Additional information about the Short Guide added 8 October 2019. Re-edited and added to the Spotlight on Peer Review, October 2022.
Just recently I received reviewers’ comments on a paper I submitted moths ago. What happened is that reviewers were not familiar at all with one of the methodologies I was using in my research. One of them made some remarks and comments which made quite sense. However, the other reviewer was completely destructive. Instead of recognizing his lack of knowledge in the first place (something like “I’m not familiar with this but I think…”), he/she just simply stated the paper was not good (“awkward and out of date” were his/her words). As a result, the editor rejected the paper.
I think sometimes you can handle reviewers’ comments, although nobody likes to feel his job criticized, but it can also happen that reviewers are just wrong and editors do not want to listen. They might have tons of papers to revise but in my opinion the system is not good enough and you have to deal with this reality.
In my case, I won’t give up and I’ll try to submit the paper to a journal more familiar with that methodology. It’s a pity but it is the price we sometimes have to pay to try something “new”.
I’m so sorry you had that experience. Unfortunately it is not uncommon.
What I notice in your comment is that you immediately saw the underlying problem. You didn’t get tangled up in the judgement and start doubting yourself. You recognize that the editor didn’t see what you saw. But you also see that the editor made a decision and that’s that. You can use the sensible comments from the first reviewer to improve the paper if you think they suggest that things could have been clearer. Finding a journal where this methodology is not strange is also a great strategy.