system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Need help getting over a particularly nasty review :(

Hi there! Thanks in advance for reading my post.

I submitted my first manuscript to a journal in my field sometime in July, and the editor recently got back to me with the decision to reject my paper without an invite to revise and resubmit. Reviewers 1 and 2 raised several points for clarification and very helpful suggestions to reframe the paper. Reviewer 3 was obviously triggered by the paper, and was acrimonious in tone and general attitude toward both myself and the paper..

To give some context, in my paper I challenged a very established paradigm in my field, that has inspired and continues to inspire many studies. Many researchers, the seasoned and  prominent ones as well as those still making their way up the ladder, are highly invested in this particular paradigm, and are known to react defensively when people challenge its validity. Reviewer 3 was obviously one of them. The cruelest part of their review said that I was "anti-Science, ignorant, and prone to dishonesty," instead of requesting further information about the control conditions as the other two reviewers had (I have a reasonable explanation, and would be open to including the materials as supplementary info but Reviewer 3 jumped straight to the assumption that I was deliberately concealing something that would discredit an alternative model I proposed), and made several snide remarks about "ignorant people without academic credentials who want to comment on real science" and how they derived great pleasure in seeing such people shamed within their academic community on Facebook. This is rather frightening, because I wouldn't want to be negatively "marked" or maybe boycotted by fellow academics in my field.

I fully acknowledge the limitations of my paper, and agree that the editor was justified in rejecting the paper on grounds of insufficient evidence. I am thankful to Reviewers 1 and 2 for their advice, and moving forward, I will make major changes and improvements to my paper. Yet it has been really hard to shake off Reviewer 3's nasty comments, and my confidence is entirely crushed to the extent that I have serious doubts as to whether I am fit for academia. Also, experiencing firsthand the "political" (pertaining to academic politics) nature of my paper and the strong reactions it could incite, I am starting to regret and feel really sorry for my 6 years of work on this topic, and there's also the fear and panic that I wouldn't be able to submit my thesis in time since everything needs reworking... sigh:(
gpt
I would suggest revising principally according to the comments from reviewers #1 and #2, and addressing any *substantive* points raised by reviewer #3. Broadly ignore the personal attacks, try to rework the paper to be as good as it can be, and submit it elsewhere.

You don't *need* to do anything regarding this reviewer, but it would not be out of place to send an email to the editor privately commenting on the abusive nature of Reviewer #3's comments and how poorly they reflect on that journal and the experience of submitting a paper to them. It might go nowhere, or depending on the editor that reviewer may not be invited to review for that journal in the future which hopefully will improve the quality of future reviews by that journal. It's not much, and it won't help you in the short term, but it might be worth doing out of altruism and/or a sense of catharsis if nothing else.

Unfortunately, some people are shitty and academia is not immune to this phenomenon. Try to shrug it off, realize that this is not a unique "political" phenomenon to academia (you'll meet shitheads in every field, no exceptions), and keep chugging forward.