I've had two very frustrating reviews. On one paper, the first reviewer said it had too much theory and the second reviewer said it had too little theory. Both rejected it. On another grant proposal, a reviewer said in paragraph one, "This is impossible, it can't be done". In paragraph two, he said "...and I know of three companies already doing this."
> On one paper, the first reviewer said it had too much theory and the second reviewer said it had too little theory. Both rejected it.
I haven't read the paper, so it's possible that one or both of the reviewers were way off base. But it's also possible that both reviewers were "correct". Often, when you get conflicting advice like that it's a sign that you're stuck in a compromised middle position that isn't quite working for anybody. For the paper in question, the comments could probably could have been better stated as "You have some theory in the paper which is a little incomplete as it stands. To improve the paper, you could either expand upon it, or cut it, but probably not keep it as it is."
On the topic of self-contradicting reviews, I once got one where the reviewer began by noting that "the paper is very difficult to read and almost impossible to understand" and proceeded to remark that "it contains very interesting ideas"...
At the very least, (s)he would have had to understand the main ideas to deem them interesting (though perhaps the details were difficult to follow). So yes, you're right that it isn't technically a contradiction. The way it was written did come across to me as intelectually dishonest at the time, though.
