How far should you go in compromising your work to get it published?

When I started writing papers, my supervisors advised me that I should consider the reviewers' comments and suggestions but not be bound by them. When revising papers after reviewer feedback I would write a response letter addressing each point, whether I had incorporated the reviewer feedback or not, and importantly - why (or why not). In most cases I found that the editor considered a justification for not amending (a portion of) the paper to be acceptable.

In one case a reviewer wanted what amounted to a literature review of possible alternative solutions, which we considered to be far beyond the scope of what we were reporting in the paper and we ultimately withdrew the paper and submitted it to a different journal.

You can politely write the editor to replace a reviewer or at least choose an additional reviewer (with better expertise for arbitration) if you are not convinced of the expertise of a reviewer. Then the rebuttal has to be also well written in a manner that will not be directed at their feelings. You must appreciate that good reviewers would also like to put in their best to properly shape your paper.

Another point (and this is worth pondering over) is that most times, good reviewers and good feedback would project to you how the audience (or some of them) would perceive your work (if it is published that way). That may be one of the reasons why it is not surprising to see very good papers in esteemed journals without a citation!

When we write, we do for others to understand. Sometimes there may be a gap between what we wish to pass across and how the reader views it. In ideal cases, this could be well understood from the feedback of the reviewers. Remember it is might be difficult to get feedback from others (especially when they are far away) when the paper gets published.

Also, the 'creativity' of experts chosen by the journal's Editor would add some 'flavour' to your skill and presentation.

Another point is that, when your paper is published so many kinds of people (and researchers) would likely read through your document. The reviewers comments would give you an idea of how effectively your message is conveyed to this wide audience.

So most times (except for instance if the reviewer is technically wrong or he did a bad job), it is mainly a question of the level of your objectivity to the feedback you get.

I was never submissive to reviewer's comments. I do not think this has negatively affected my career or publication record. [Disclosure: I have not published in the top journals.]

My first paper was heavily criticised by committee members, and reviewers from 2 different journals. I could immediately perceive the ups and downs of our project, helped by constructive criticism. Also I could see where a reviewer wasn't being fair. From my first Response to Reviews I have been cold, objective, and responsive to every comment according with our impressions. I have refuted the views of reviewers and editors alike, with the help of my supervisor. That paper was heavily modified and rewritten times over from its draft version down to publication [= ca. 1 year]. I am quite happy with the result and it remains one of my most cited and read papers.

I have encountered co-authors who would tell me to be sweeter towards reviewers, horrified at how casually I approach my Response to Reviews. On the other hand I have seen too many authors vilifying anonymous reviewers who had made fair comments and suggestions on their work.

Thus my answer to you is that you should be willing to make any amount of modification on your manuscripts towards making it easier to understand. Do not get emotionally attached to your papers as a piece of artistic creation. Good reviewers are there to help you produce clear, concise scientific literature, where your style and taste have no taste. And finally, do not focus on just getting papers accepted for publication, because this is where you empower bad reviewers and ultimately journal mafias. First try to neutralise a bad reviewer, and if unsuccessful just publish your piece elsewhere.