What to do when the reviewer is wrong about your paper's scope, technically inaccurate, and clearly haven't read your rebuttals You might think the title is a bit of an exaggeration, however this is exactly what has happened.
Note: No, I can't find my answer on How to React to Incorrect Claims by Reviewers? as it addresses the rebuttals/revisions but my question is about what to do after the final decision. (no rebuttal chance)
The reviewer can not differentiate X from Y, is technically wrong and obviously have no in-depth expertise, no let me put it this way even an undergrad knows X from Y, they suggested this is not the first paper using Y in A, when my paper is using X in B (totally different methodology and scope and even the problem addressed).
Moreover, they told me they think the format of my abstract is &quot;extremely odd&quot; because it is divided in 4 sections and they haven't seen it anywhere when it is the author's guidelines, and I sent them the link to the author guidelines and the template file, also copy/pasted that part and included in rebuttal -  and they wrote they &quot;still think it is extremely odd and they haven't seen it elsewhere&quot;.
After receiving my first reviews and submitted a complete rebuttal making changes to answer ALL questions, revised writing, added supplementary materials, I was still waiting to hear from the journal after almost 3 months (one week short) for revision - I am a reviewer for the same journal and I am asked to submit reviews in 3 weeks!! so I asked them why it was taking so long, and in a few days I get the reviews and the reject.
The other reviewer's first review was &quot;the technical writing is weak&quot; - this was ALL, no details, no directions - I made substantial changes and wrote very much in detail, the math, the narrative and they wrote &quot;I should reorganize and submit as new&quot; with no details, no directions.
I feel so frustrated, I had an experience like this with the same journal before and got an even worse one who said &quot;the paper was clearly written by a native speaker and that native speaker should help the other revise&quot; - I wrote the whole paper! They also wrote some technical claims about my methodology which was plain wrong.
AND! again, it was also the same - I asked them why it was taking so long (over 4 months after my revision), and in a few days I get the reviews and the reject. Moreover, someone had snatched my exact methodology and used for the same problem and submitted to that journal later. As a reviewer I see papers being accepted all the time with much less novelty and technical writing.
I really don't understand how the editor even lets this happen, the part about the abstract's format made its way to the both reviews! Even after my correction. The reviewer clearly thinks my paper is on something else entirely and lacks expertise.
How can I refute this? Can I refute this? are they doing this on purpose to gatekeep me?
there are not many journals in my field, because this one took so long I couldn't make it to other major conferences, and now I wanted to submit to another journal which is a bit different in scope and is much harder to get into -but- I am not even sure I can because my journal submission here is also accepted as a paper (first version) -but- is not published yet (so I can't submit to another journal because I would need to make a reference to the paper version). Also these are all supposedly Q1 journals.
Should I submit to the same journal and hope there will be reviewers with some common sense? Would I be rejected right away? Considering how slow they have been (7.5 months for these kind of reviews! I doubt they will be kind to answer my emails)
Moving on is the best approach, as @lighthouse suggests.
If you don't like the best approach and prefer to combat it, you can ask the editor for another reviewer. Politely, on a day you feel great about everything else in your life and after being absolutely showered by compliments by all of your friends has put you in the very most positive mindset, write a rebuttal identifying the review's shortcomings and suggest to the editor that some bias seems to be preventing a good review and that you ask for another independent review.
If they send it to another reviewer, your fate is then in their hands. If they refuse, well, you're back where you started: move on, submit to another journal. You express concerns about an overlapping conference submission but if your field accepts conference papers as papers then the journal article doesn't matter, and if your field does not accept conference papers as papers then the conference doesn't matter.
&quot;Bad reviews&quot; like you describe - not bad in terms of negativity but intrinsically poor - are common.