Do I need to mention an incompetent referee in Conflicts of Interest (or comment)?

Question

Facts:

1. About 18 months ago I submitted a paper claiming the result previously published by Michael is false.

2. The first referee used details in Michael's paper to defend Michael's points, trying hard to invalid all of my claims.

3. The editor rejected my paper and suggests a complete rewriting (reject-and-resubmit).

4. After rewriting, I emailed Michael and Michael never replied.

My opinions:

1. I think the first referee's report lacks basic skills and his claims are false. A few experts share the same opinions as mine.

2. I think the first referee is Michael because the first referee is too familiar with every details of Michael's paper.

3. I guess I need to mention in the Conflicts of Interest those facts that Michael did not reply and the referee was incompetent; but I don't know if I need to write a long rebuttal including every details.

Question: What is my best action here?

Considering the reports are one-year-old, is it the best action for me to write a reply to that first referee's review?

I usually don't want to harshly criticize someone and I believe that saying harsh words will make the editor think that I am not a decent person.

Answer 1

The "conflict of interest"-angle is the wrong one here. Basically, the editor already has all the information you have, and even more: The editor knows that Michael is likely to be predisposed to assume that Michael is right and you are wrong. Moreover, the editor has chosen Referee 1 (whether or not they are Michael) because the editor believes Referee 1 would provide valuable input. You just claiming that Referee 1 is incompetent is only going to make you look rude.

A thorough rebuttal, on the other hand, is definitely appropriate. You want to convince the editor that you are right, so you'll want to address all of Referee 1's counterpoints. Part of that might be in your paper itself (point to those paragraphs in the reponses to the referee comments), part of that will be just in the reponses-to-the-referee-comments. Avoid commenting on the competence of the referee, this is irrelevant to your case.

Answer 2

Don't speculate about who the reviewer(s) of your manuscript are. Nothing good can come out of having the knowledge. You don't know if it actually is Michael who reviewed. "Too familiar with every details of Michael's paper" is not conclusive -- it's possible the first reviewer was simply very conscientious and took the time read through Michael's paper in detail. That Michael didn't reply to your email also doesn't mean anything, e.g. a simple explanation is your email went into their spam box.

That said, it's worth pointing out that if your paper claims to falsify Michael's paper, it is natural to ask Michael to review the paper. This is because Michael knows their own work better than everyone else, so they will know if you used their model/theory/etc. correctly.

• You should include a rebuttal to the review, because if the journal realizes it's a reject-and-resubmit manuscript (any good EMS will flag such papers), then they'll be expecting a rebuttal. Omitting it makes it seem like you didn't take the reviewer seriously.
• You should not criticize the reviewer. Criticize their comments, not the reviewer, especially since you don't know who the reviewer is.
• If it comes to it, you can request Michael recuse as a reviewer. It's probable that the EMS will have such an option for you to exclude competitors who might be biased against your paper. However, there's a good chance you'll be asked to explain why the people you name are not suitable, and "I think they reviewed my first manuscript and are incompetent" will not win you any points with the editor.