How to Handle Conflicting Reviewer Comments: A Guide for Authors

Introduction

Receiving conflicting reviewer comments during the peer review process can be both confusing and frustrating for authors. While constructive feedback is invaluable for improving a manuscript, differing opinions among reviewers can create uncertainty about how to proceed with revisions. Authors must carefully navigate these discrepancies to strengthen their paper while satisfying journal requirements. This article explores best practices for handling conflicting reviewer comments and ensuring a well-prepared response to editors.

Understanding Conflicting Reviewer Comments

Peer reviewers play a crucial role in evaluating research for academic journals. However, they may have different perspectives based on their expertise, research focus, or personal preferences. Some common types of conflicting comments include:

1. Methodological Discrepancies – One reviewer may question a method's validity while another finds it appropriate.
2. Interpretation Differences – Reviewers may disagree on how data should be analyzed or presented.
3. Suggestions for Additional Experiments – One reviewer may demand additional data while another finds the existing results sufficient.
4. Writing and Structure Preferences – Comments on clarity, tone, or organization may contradict each other.
5. Opposing Publication Recommendations – One reviewer may recommend acceptance while another suggests rejection.

Understanding the nature of these conflicts is the first step in formulating a strategy for revisions.

Best Practices for Handling Conflicting Reviewer Comments

1. Carefully Analyze the Comments

Begin by thoroughly reviewing all comments, identifying areas of agreement and disagreement. Highlight major points that need attention and categorize them based on methodological, analytical, and stylistic concerns. Consider the following questions:

• Are the comments addressing the same issue but from different angles?
• Do they indicate fundamental flaws in the research or minor stylistic preferences?
• Do any comments align with the journal’s guidelines and editorial standards?

2. Consult with Co-Authors and Mentors

Discussing conflicting feedback with co-authors or mentors can provide valuable insights. Team discussions help determine the most reasonable course of action and ensure a balanced approach to addressing concerns. If necessary, seek advice from experienced colleagues who have dealt with similar situations.

3. Prioritize Reviewer Comments Based on Validity

Not all comments carry equal weight. Some critiques may be subjective, while others are crucial for improving the research. Consider:

• Which comments directly impact the study’s validity and credibility?
• Are any suggestions impractical or unnecessary given the study’s scope?
• Does the editor provide guidance on which comments should take priority?

Focusing on comments that enhance scientific rigor and align with journal expectations will help streamline revisions.

4. Address All Comments, Even When Disagreeing

Even if an author disagrees with a reviewer's suggestion, it is essential to acknowledge it respectfully in the response letter. Clearly explain why the proposed change was not implemented and provide evidence supporting the original approach. A well-reasoned argument can demonstrate that the authors carefully considered all feedback.

Example Response:
“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to use an alternative statistical method. However, after consulting statistical guidelines and analyzing our dataset, we found that our original method provides the most accurate results. We have included additional justification in the revised manuscript (Page 10, Lines 20-25).”

5. Find Common Ground Between Conflicting Comments

If two reviewers provide opposing recommendations, try to find a middle ground that satisfies both perspectives. This may involve:

• Revising the text to clarify interpretations.
• Providing additional explanations or supplementary data.
• Combining elements of both suggestions where feasible.

For instance, if one reviewer requests additional experiments and another deems them unnecessary, authors could strengthen their justification for the existing dataset while outlining potential future research directions.

6. Seek Editorial Guidance if Necessary

If conflicts between reviewers are particularly difficult to resolve, consider reaching out to the journal editor for clarification. Editors can provide guidance on which feedback is more critical for publication. When contacting an editor:

• Summarize the conflicting comments.
• Explain how the authors intend to address them.
• Ask for input on how to proceed with the revisions.

Many journals encourage open communication between authors and editors, making this a valuable option in complex cases.

7. Maintain a Professional and Constructive Tone

Regardless of the nature of the feedback, responses should remain professional and appreciative. Avoid defensive or dismissive language. Reviewers invest time in evaluating submissions, and respectful communication fosters a positive peer review process.

Dos:

• “We sincerely thank the reviewer for their insightful comments, which have helped improve our manuscript.”
• “We acknowledge the concern raised and have addressed it by adding a detailed explanation in Section 3.”

Don’ts:

• “The reviewer clearly misunderstood our research.”
• “We disagree with this comment and have ignored it.”

8. Revise the Manuscript Clearly and Transparently

Editors and reviewers appreciate transparency in revisions. To ensure clarity:

• Use tracked changes to highlight modifications.
• Provide a detailed response letter that outlines all revisions and explanations.
• Reference specific pages and line numbers where changes were made.

A well-organized revision document improves the chances of a smooth second review process.

Example Response Table for Conflicting Reviewer Comments

Final Steps Before Resubmission

Once all comments have been addressed, follow these final steps:

1. Re-read the manuscript – Ensure that revisions align with reviewer feedback and improve clarity.
2. Check journal guidelines – Verify formatting, referencing style, and submission requirements.
3. Proofread the response letter – A well-structured and clear response improves credibility.
4. Submit within the given timeline – Timely resubmission reflects professionalism and commitment.

Conclusion

Handling conflicting reviewer comments is a common challenge in academic publishing. By carefully analyzing feedback, consulting with co-authors, prioritizing constructive suggestions, and responding professionally, authors can navigate revisions effectively. Maintaining a balanced and thoughtful approach not only enhances the manuscript’s quality but also increases the likelihood of acceptance in peer-reviewed journals. Understanding how to manage reviewer disagreements will empower authors throughout their publishing journey.