Other reviwer was subpar and broke rules
Hi everyone,
I was honored to be asked to do my first review for a Q1 journal this week. I thought the paper was quite well written but lacked some important details (not getting to specific in order not to get identified). I suggested major revisions.
The other reviwer did so as well. We both agreed that the state of the art section was lacking. While I made general comments and suggestions, the other reviewer gave a long list of their own research (at least almost all seem to have the same co-author). Quickly scanning these works also lead me to the conclusion that their content is not really relevant to the paper we reviewed.
Furthermore, I found the quality of their other comments to be lacking. At least I, for one, would have not known what do change/improve based on these quite general comments. They where of the nature "provide way more data". Of what? Why? What's lacking? Not really helpful...
I decided to contact the editor about these concerns and am awaiting a reply.
Has anyone made experiences with such Reviewers and Reviewer disagreements?