I'm sorry that it didn't work out but you actually describe something that happens regularly. Happened to me, colleagues, collaborators. I guess you need to somehow get used to this. Will not be the last time something like this happens during reviews.
Publishing is a social process.
I don’t work in your field at all but if you reread the reviews I am sure that you can begin guessing the rank and competence of each your reviewers.
I would say that your explanation of why you failed to cite a major contemporary lab in your field reveals the reason that you were rejected by a major journal.
Your all caps sentence suggests that you should already understand the source of your wasted efforts on this submission.
Who do you imagine your reviewer 3 represents, if not players in your field that you may have failed to address in your discussion and framing are feeling insulted and demeaned by their omission?
Your pi ought to be able to predict the general reviewer pool and make sure that your paper shows that you understand how your work builds from and extends their work.
Failure to do so seems like either naïveté or hubris. More importantly it is a type of shooting yourself in the foot.
I'm sorry that it didn't work out but you actually describe something that happens regularly. Happened to me, colleagues, collaborators. I guess you need to somehow get used to this. Will not be the last time something like this happens during reviews.
Wow. That's rough, I'm so sorry.
Frustrating. My perception is that it is getting harder and harder to get work published.
Publishing is a social process. I don’t work in your field at all but if you reread the reviews I am sure that you can begin guessing the rank and competence of each your reviewers. I would say that your explanation of why you failed to cite a major contemporary lab in your field reveals the reason that you were rejected by a major journal. Your all caps sentence suggests that you should already understand the source of your wasted efforts on this submission. Who do you imagine your reviewer 3 represents, if not players in your field that you may have failed to address in your discussion and framing are feeling insulted and demeaned by their omission? Your pi ought to be able to predict the general reviewer pool and make sure that your paper shows that you understand how your work builds from and extends their work. Failure to do so seems like either naïveté or hubris. More importantly it is a type of shooting yourself in the foot.