Dealing with Unfair Peer Reviews: How Authors Can Respond Professionally

Dealing with Unfair Peer Reviews in Academic & Scientific Publishing

Introduction: When Peer Review Goes Wrong

Peer review is one of the foundations of academic and scientific publishing. Before a manuscript is accepted, it is usually evaluated by independent experts who assess its originality, methodology, clarity, and contribution to the field. Ideally, this process improves the work, filters out weak or flawed research, and gives readers confidence that what they are reading has been carefully scrutinised.

In practice, however, peer review is carried out by humans under time pressure. Reviewers bring their own preferences, assumptions, and limitations to the task, and not every review is balanced or constructive. Most experienced authors can recall at least one review that felt unfair – a report that seemed biased, careless, contradictory, or even hostile. Such experiences can be discouraging, especially for early-career researchers who are still learning the norms of scholarly communication.

Although you cannot control what a reviewer writes, you can control how you respond. Dealing with unfair peer reviews calmly, strategically, and professionally can preserve your reputation, safeguard your relationship with the journal, and, in many cases, still lead to publication. This article explains how.

Recognising an Unfair Peer Review

Before reacting, it is important to distinguish between feedback that is simply tough – but valid – and feedback that crosses the line into unfairness.

Signs of a Fair but Tough Review

Not all negative reviews are unfair. A fair reviewer may:

• identify genuine weaknesses in your methods, analysis, or interpretation;
• request additional analyses, clarifications, or references that strengthen the paper;
• recommend rejection because the work is outside the journal’s scope or does not make a sufficient contribution.

Such criticisms can be painful to read, but they are usually backed by clear reasoning, evidence, and concrete suggestions. They focus on the work, not on you as a person, and they are expressed in a professional tone.

Indicators of an Unfair Review

By contrast, an unfair peer review might display one or more of the following features:

1. Lack of constructive feedback
   Comments are vague (“This paper is poorly written,” “The study is not interesting”) with no specific examples or guidance on what to improve. You are left guessing what the reviewer actually wants.
2. Unjustified criticism
   Negative claims are not supported by arguments, data, or references. For example, a reviewer asserts that your sample size is “too small” without reference to standards in your field or to similar published studies.
3. Biased, dismissive, or hostile language
   The report includes personal attacks (“The authors clearly do not understand basic statistics”), sarcasm, or an insulting tone. Professional reviewers critique the work, not the people.
4. Possible conflicts of interest
   The reviewer appears to be a direct competitor or has previously published strongly opposing views, and their comments focus more on defending their own approach than on evaluating your study.
5. Unrealistic or excessive demands
   The reviewer asks for additional experiments, data collection, or analyses that would require years of work, entirely new datasets, or resources clearly beyond the scope of the original project.
6. Contradictory comments between reviewers
   One reviewer insists that a section is unnecessary while another insists it is essential, leaving you with incompatible instructions.
7. Rejection with little or no explanation
   The editorial decision cites reviewer opinions but provides almost no information about what was wrong with the manuscript or how it could be improved.

Recognising these patterns helps you decide whether you are facing a genuinely unfair review, or simply a tough but legitimate one. In many cases, a review may contain a mixture of both.

First Steps: Processing the Review

1. Give yourself time

It is normal to feel angry, hurt, or anxious when you first read a negative review – especially if you have invested months or years in the work. Resist the urge to respond immediately. Instead:

• step away for a day or two;
• talk to a trusted colleague or mentor to gain perspective;
• re-read the review once the initial emotional reaction has faded.

This pause allows you to approach the comments more objectively and reduces the risk of writing a defensive or confrontational response that you might later regret.

2. Separate the useful from the unfair

Most reviews, even those that feel harsh, contain at least some points that can help you improve your paper. Go through the comments point by point and ask:

• Does this reviewer highlight a real weakness or lack of clarity?
• Is there a misunderstanding that suggests I need to explain something more clearly?
• Is this demand reasonable within the scope of the current study?

Mark comments that are valid and actionable, those that are questionable, and those that are clearly unfair or irrelevant. Focusing on what you can change – even in an imperfect review – transforms the process into a constructive exercise rather than a personal attack.

Crafting a Professional, Evidence-Based Response

Most journals expect authors to submit a detailed response to reviewers alongside any revised manuscript. This response is your opportunity to demonstrate that you take the review seriously, can engage with criticism thoughtfully, and are capable of improving the work.

3. Structure your response clearly

A common and effective format is a point-by-point response document. For each comment:

1. Quote the reviewer’s comment (or summarise it briefly).
2. State your response, explaining what you have changed or why you disagree.
3. Indicate where the changes can be found in the revised manuscript (page and line numbers).

This structure shows respect for the reviewers’ time and makes it easy for them – and the editor – to see how you have addressed each issue.

4. Maintain a calm, respectful tone

Even when you disagree strongly with a comment, your language should remain polite and professional. Avoid sarcasm, rhetorical questions, or emotionally charged phrases. Instead, use neutral, factual statements:

• “We thank the reviewer for raising this point.”
• “We agree that this section required clarification and have now revised it as follows…”
• “We respectfully disagree with the reviewer’s interpretation, for the following reasons…”

Remember that reviewers are often giving their time unpaid. A respectful tone not only reflects well on you but also makes it easier for the editor to support your case if you argue against a comment.

5. Clarify misunderstandings

Some unfair-seeming comments arise because the reviewer misread or misunderstood a part of your paper. In such cases:

• first, acknowledge the misunderstanding;
• then, take responsibility for clarifying your writing.

Example:
“We apologise for the lack of clarity that led to this misunderstanding. We have now revised the last paragraph of Section 2.3 (page 7, lines 145–160) to explain more clearly how participants were selected.”

This approach avoids blaming the reviewer and emphasises your willingness to improve the manuscript.

6. Provide evidence when you disagree

If you believe a reviewer’s criticism is incorrect or unreasonable, it is acceptable to say so – but you must support your position with evidence. For example:

Example:
“We appreciate the reviewer’s concern about the sample size. However, similar studies in this field have used comparable or smaller samples (e.g. Brown et al., 2019; Lee & Kim, 2021). Our power analysis (now reported in Section 3.1, page 9, lines 200–215) indicates that the current sample is adequate to detect the expected effect size.”

By citing established literature or methodological standards, you show that your choices are grounded in scholarly practice, not personal preference.

7. Handling contradictory reviewer comments

When reviewers disagree with each other, you cannot satisfy everyone. Instead:

• make your best judgement, explaining your reasoning;
• signal these conflicts clearly to the editor.

Example:
“Reviewer 1 recommends removing Table 2, whereas Reviewer 2 emphasises its importance. We have retained the table but shortened the accompanying text and clarified its purpose (page 12, lines 250–270). We hope the editor agrees that this strikes an appropriate balance.”

In particularly sharp conflicts, it is reasonable to ask the editor for guidance. Editors are used to such situations and can indicate which aspects they consider most crucial.

Requesting Editorial Intervention

Sometimes a review is so poorly justified or unprofessional that you believe it may have distorted the editorial decision. In such cases, you may consider writing directly to the editor to request a second opinion or a new review.

8. When should you escalate?

Consider seeking editorial intervention if:

• the review contains personal attacks or clearly inappropriate language;
• major criticisms are based on factual errors or misunderstandings you can demonstrate;
• the reviewer demands extensive work that is not feasible within the scope of the current study;
• there is evidence of a conflict of interest (for example, the reviewer appears to be rejecting the paper to protect their own competing work).

9. How to approach the editor

When writing to an editor about an unfair review:

• be concise and factual;
• avoid emotional language or accusations;
• quote specific problematic passages;
• explain why you believe these passages do not reflect a fair assessment.

Example letter:
“Dear Dr [Editor’s Name],
Thank you for arranging the review of our manuscript [ID, title]. We are grateful for the time and effort invested by the reviewers. However, we have concerns about aspects of Reviewer 2’s report. Several comments appear to be based on factual misunderstandings, and some statements are presented without supporting evidence (see, for example, points 3 and 5 in the attached response document). We would be grateful if you could consider whether an additional, independent review might be appropriate, or advise us on how best to proceed.”

Editors are not obliged to grant such requests, but many will at least consider them seriously if they are presented respectfully and backed by clear reasoning.

Appealing a Rejection

If your manuscript has been rejected and you believe an unfair review was a major factor, you may have the option to appeal. Appeals should be used sparingly and only when there are strong grounds.

10. Grounds for a reasonable appeal

Possible reasons to appeal include:

• the rejection is based on demonstrable factual errors in the review;
• there is clear evidence of bias or conflict of interest;
• the reviews are inconsistent or mutually contradictory, and the editorial decision does not address this;
• you believe the editor has overlooked important information (for example, a major revision you made that directly addressed previous concerns).

11. Writing an effective appeal

Before writing, check whether the journal has an appeals policy. Some journals have formal procedures; others consider appeals on a case-by-case basis. In your appeal letter:

• thank the editor for their time and for the reviewers’ efforts;
• state clearly that you are requesting reconsideration of the decision;
• briefly summarise your grounds for appeal, referencing specific comments and your responses;
• attach your revised manuscript and your detailed response document, if you have revised the paper.

Example appeal paragraph:
“We respect the reviewers’ efforts and appreciate the critical feedback provided. However, we believe that the rejection of our manuscript rests on two key misunderstandings of our methodology (Reviewer 1, comments 2 and 4). In our attached response, we explain why these interpretations are inconsistent with the information already present in the manuscript and with established practice in the field. We have also revised Sections 3 and 4 to clarify these points further. In light of these clarifications, we respectfully request that you reconsider the decision, or, if appropriate, seek an additional independent review.”

Remember that even a well-argued appeal may not succeed. Editors must consider limited review resources and the journal’s priorities. If your appeal is declined, it is usually best to move on and submit the paper elsewhere rather than continuing to argue.

Reducing the Risk of Unfair Reviews

While you cannot control reviewers, you can take steps to reduce the likelihood of misunderstandings and unfair criticism.

12. Choose an appropriate journal

Submitting to a journal that is a poor fit – in terms of topic, methods, or audience – increases the chance that reviewers will not fully appreciate your approach. Before submitting:

• check the journal’s aims and scope carefully;
• look at recent articles to see whether your work is similar in topic and methodology;
• make sure your manuscript follows the journal’s formatting and referencing guidelines closely.

13. Write as clearly as possible

Many “unfair” comments stem from genuine confusion. Dense prose, unclear figures, or weak organisation make misunderstandings more likely. To minimise them:

• use clear, precise language and avoid unnecessary jargon;
• ensure that key terms and abbreviations are defined early and used consistently;
• ask colleagues or professional proofreaders to read a near-final draft and flag confusing sections.

Investing in human proofreading and editing before submission can be especially helpful if you are writing in a second language or if your work involves complex arguments that must be expressed with great care.

14. Suggest suitable reviewers

Many journals invite authors to suggest potential reviewers. Thoughtfully chosen suggestions can increase the chances that your manuscript is evaluated by people who understand your topic and methods. When making suggestions:

• propose researchers who publish in the area but are not close collaborators or obvious competitors;
• avoid suggesting people with whom you have conflicts of interest;
• follow the journal’s policy on how many names to provide.

Editors are not obliged to use your suggestions, but they often appreciate them, particularly in specialised fields where the pool of experts is small.

Turning Unfair Reviews into Progress

Even the most unfair review may still contain clues about how others will read your work. If a reviewer misinterprets your methods, for example, that suggests you may need to explain them more clearly for future readers. If several reviewers comment on the same perceived weakness, this is a signal that something in the manuscript needs attention – regardless of tone.

Approach each round of review as an opportunity to refine your work for a wider audience:

• use valid criticisms to sharpen your argument and improve your methods section;
• use misunderstandings as a prompt to clarify wording, structure, and presentation;
• use unreasonable demands to reflect on the scope of your current study and to identify questions for future research.

In this way, even hostile or careless reviews can play an indirect role in making your paper stronger.

Conclusion: Professionalism, Persistence and Perspective

Unfair peer reviews are an unfortunate reality of academic life, but they do not have to derail your publication plans. Recognising the difference between legitimate critique and genuinely unfair treatment is the first step. From there, a calm, evidence-based response, coupled with respectful communication with editors, can often salvage a difficult situation or, at the very least, prepare your manuscript for a more receptive journal.

Above all, remember that one reviewer’s opinion is not the final verdict on your research. Many important papers were initially rejected or harshly reviewed before finding the right home. By engaging with reviews constructively, seeking guidance when needed, and improving both your work and your writing, you increase your chances of eventual success. In the long run, the skills you develop in handling peer review – critical reading, diplomacy, and resilience – are as valuable to your career as any single publication.