Five years ago, we (I mean a candidate and myself) received an evaluation report. As any scientist, the reading of an evaluation is always a key moment.
We knew this moment is crucial because you can (or not) integrate the critics in your new life, namely the day after you read the evaluation.
We knew that the project was rejected and we were curious about how to do better.
We knew that some parameters are out of our control like the low number of citations.
But we were not ready to read the message from an anonymous reviewer. I guess that, after 5 years, I can just quote one or two sentences from the report without destroying the confidentiality.
The referee wrote: "The main criticism is the number of citations which is low. The physics is "fun" and well done. You can make great conferences but finally the investigations are not at all useful or interesting for physicists in their works of every days. This criticism is obviously shared by his permanent collaborators, at least on these papers. "
5 years ago. I only feel a bit easy with that now. Actually, the critics was completely at the opposite view of my position about science : curiosity driven to reply to questions the public could be interested in. No. It seems that it was important to work for the other physicists (in order to be more cited ?). After 5 years of thinkings and re-evaluation of what I should do, I can propose a new position. For example, I understood that the referee view replies to immediate and business concerns. However, I can really claim that "fun" physics problems reply to fundamental questions and allow to provide new tools for applications.
Finally, I strongly believe that a "fun" problem helps other physicists. When reading results from CERN, I am impressed and interested. When I see great conferences in astrophysics, I am impressed and interested. When reading results about spaghetti breaking, I am impressed and interested. Do they help me in my works of every days. The response is YES ! It helps to feel like a physicist.
Anyway, I get the message. Be more explicit about the fundamental questions and about the applications but never forget the internal fire that engines your scientific life.