system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
How would you respond to these vague negative journal review comments?

I shouldn't be surprised about vague negative journal paper review comments at this point in my career, but they still drive me crazy. Just received this set of comments from a reviewer on a journal paper:

*"My comments:*

* *Abstract must be rewritten. It does not read like an abstract in a research paper should.*
* *Introduction must be rewritten completely.*
* *Background must be rewritten completely.*
* *Methods must be rewritten completely. I do not understand that the author is talking about.*
* *Results have informative figures, but the text must be rewritten completely.*
* *Discussion must be reformulated and made more relevant.*
* *Recommendation: Reject, since the paper must be rewritten completely to be acceptable for publication."*

That was the entirety of their review. Comments like these drive me nuts because there's like no good way to respond to them. Also this person has a penchant for wanting things "rewritten completely" but no guidance on towards what end. Finally, discussion must be "made more relevant" to whom or what exactly?

Fortunately there was a second reviewer who was very positive, so we got a major revision decision from the editor.

How would you approach responding to these comments in the revision?
gpt
We once responded to a review by saying “Reviewer 2 needs to up his dose.”   And nothing else!   In this case, I’d just say, “Unfortunately, Reviewer Two’s comments are not specific enough to be actionable” and leave it at that.