Receiving reviews from peers is a privilege and should be used wisely as an invaluable expert feedback. How else could you find 3 or more top-notch specialists taking the time to read and comment on your work?

On the other hand, it is natural to be upset by a negative review. The best way to cope with this, I find, is to apply the "Peter Dowben Golden Rule" (after Professor Peter Dowben from the Department of Physics at UNL). Don't know the rule yet? Here it is, as I remember it:

"Print the review; spit on it; throw it in your garbage bin; go out for a large beer; come back to your office; get the print out of the bin; (wipe it clean;) and start addressing the reviewers' comments one by one."

Here some other things you want to keep in mind:

1. Do not be shocked to see reviewers correct typos. Typos are very annoying to the reader. Toby Walsh said one (I am quoting from memory): "Do not expect smiles from your advisor if your manuscript has typos."


2. If the reviewers misunderstood a point, although you think you have clearly stated it, consider re-wording your statement, showing examples, or.. repeating it at strategical points.


3. (Almost) all reviewers are well intentioned and they genuinely want to help.


4. It is not unlikely that the same reviewer will evaluate your paper again when you re-submit it elsewhere. If your re-submission ignores his/her earlier comments, you have gained yourself an 'enemy.' No one likes to be ignored. So, make sure to address all misunderstandings in your new draft or send a response to the chair/editor to be forwarded to the reviewer.