What Should I Do When I Receive Two Different Responses from My Peer Reviewers?

By Dr. Aanya Mehta
Research Writer & Professional Business Communicator

Receiving peer-review reports is already an intense stage of academic publishing. Receiving two reports that appear to tell you completely different things can make the revision process considerably more confusing. If you are asking, “what should I do when I receive two different responses from my peer reviewers?”, the most important principle is this: do not assume that you must choose one reviewer and ignore the other.

Instead, read the editor’s decision first, identify exactly where the reviews agree and disagree, decide whether the recommendations can be reconciled, and prepare a transparent point-by-point response showing how you dealt with each comment. When two suggestions are genuinely incompatible, explain the conflict respectfully and justify the approach you have chosen. If the contradiction affects a fundamental issue such as methodology, study scope, interpretation, or the central argument—and the editor has not indicated which direction to follow—it may be appropriate to ask the handling editor for clarification before making a major revision.

Different reviewer opinions are not necessarily evidence that something has gone wrong. Peer review involves expert judgment, and reviewers may approach the same manuscript from different disciplinary perspectives, methodological traditions, theoretical positions, or expectations about journal readership. Wiley’s description of the peer-review process notes that the handling editor considers all returned reviews and may seek another opinion when reviews differ widely. The editor, rather than either individual reviewer, ultimately manages the journal’s decision-making process.

Your task as an author is therefore not to “win” an argument between reviewers. It is to produce the strongest defensible revision while making your reasoning easy for the editor and reviewers to understand.

That requires more than mechanically implementing every requested change. You need to distinguish compatible suggestions from genuine contradictions, separate major scientific concerns from stylistic preferences, protect the integrity and scope of your study, and document every decision in your response letter.

This guide explains how to do that systematically.

Quick Answer: What Should I Do When I Receive Two Different Responses from My Peer Reviewers?

First, read the editor’s decision letter before acting on either review. The editor may already have identified which concerns are essential, which recommendations are optional, or which direction should take priority.

Next, place all comments from Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2, and the editor into a response matrix. Classify them as:

• Comments that agree
• Comments that address different issues
• Comments that can both be implemented
• Comments that appear different but can be reconciled
• Comments that directly contradict one another
• Comments requiring clarification from the editor

Address every comment separately. Where both reviewers’ suggestions can improve the manuscript without creating inconsistency, implement both. Where they cannot coexist, select the approach that is scientifically, methodologically, and editorially best justified, and explain why.

Do not silently ignore the reviewer whose recommendation you did not follow. Elsevier’s author guidance explicitly recognizes that authors may decide not to implement a reviewer comment, provided they explain what was not changed and why.

If the disagreement concerns a major change that could substantially alter the study, contact the editor when necessary rather than guessing what the journal expects.

Key Takeaways

• The editor’s decision letter should guide your priorities, especially when reviewers disagree.
• Two different reviews do not always represent a true contradiction; reviewers may simply be focusing on different aspects of the manuscript.
• Respond to every reviewer comment, even when you decide not to make the requested change.
• When comments conflict, identify the underlying concern before deciding which recommendation to follow.
• A respectful, evidence-based explanation is usually stronger than simply stating that you disagree.
• Major contradictions concerning methodology, study design, interpretation, or scope may justify asking the handling editor for clarification.
• Your response letter should make it easy for the editor to see what changed, where it changed, and why.

What This Page Covers

This guide explains:

• Why peer reviewers sometimes give contradictory recommendations
• How to determine whether reviewer comments really conflict
• Whose advice should take priority when reviewers disagree
• A step-by-step method for reconciling reviewer feedback
• How to respond when you cannot satisfy both reviewers
• How to write a clear point-by-point response letter
• When contacting the journal editor is appropriate

Table of Contents

1. Why Do Peer Reviewers Sometimes Give Different Responses?
2. Who Has the Final Say When Reviewers Disagree?
3. Are the Comments Actually Contradictory?
4. A Step-by-Step Method for Handling Conflicting Reviewer Comments
5. How to Prioritize Different Types of Reviewer Feedback
6. What to Do When Two Reviewer Requests Cannot Both Be Followed
7. Practical Examples of Conflicting Peer-Review Comments
8. How to Write Your Response Letter
9. When Should You Ask the Editor for Clarification?
10. Common Mistakes to Avoid
11. Checklist Before Resubmitting Your Manuscript
12. How Contentxprtz Can Support the Revision Process
13. Summary
14. Frequently Asked Questions
15. About the Author
16. Conclusion

Methodology and Academic Sources

The guidance in this article draws on established scholarly publishing practices and current author guidance from major academic publishers.

For example, Wiley explains that the handling editor evaluates returned peer-review reports and may invite another reviewer where opinions differ substantially. Springer Nature advises authors to address all points raised by reviewers and editors and to provide a scholarly explanation when they disagree with a recommendation. Taylor & Francis similarly recommends cataloguing all requested revisions, preparing a point-by-point response, clarifying misunderstandings, and explaining why particular requested changes cannot be made.

Journal procedures vary. Always check the decision letter, revision instructions, author guidelines, and any journal-specific requirements before resubmitting.

Why Do Peer Reviewers Sometimes Give Different Responses?

Reviewers can legitimately reach different conclusions because peer review involves expert evaluation rather than a mechanical scoring process.

One reviewer may be a specialist in your methodology. Another may be particularly interested in your theoretical contribution. A third might focus primarily on clinical relevance, statistical analysis, policy implications, or presentation.

Consequently, Reviewer 1 might write:

“The manuscript needs a stronger theoretical discussion.”

Reviewer 2 might write:

“The theoretical discussion is already too extensive and should be shortened.”

At first glance, the instructions appear incompatible.

However, the reviewers may actually be commenting on different weaknesses. Reviewer 1 may want more discussion of one particular theory, while Reviewer 2 may be objecting to several pages of generic theoretical background.

The solution might therefore be to remove unfocused material while strengthening the discussion of the most relevant theoretical framework.

This is why you should identify the concern behind each comment rather than responding only to its surface wording.

Common reasons reviewers disagree

Reviewer disagreement may arise from differences in:

• Subject expertise
• Methodological preferences
• Theoretical orientation
• Disciplinary conventions
• Interpretation of the evidence
• Expectations about the target audience
• Views about the appropriate scope of the paper
• Expectations concerning statistical analysis
• Opinions about what information belongs in the main manuscript
• Judgments about novelty or significance

Different opinions do not automatically make either reviewer unreasonable.

The goal is to understand what each reviewer is trying to improve.

Who Has the Final Say When Reviewers Disagree?

The handling editor or editorial team—not an individual reviewer—makes the editorial decision.

Wiley describes reviewers as providing recommendations and comments that the handling editor considers when determining what happens to the manuscript. When returned reviews differ widely, another reviewer may sometimes be invited.

This distinction is extremely important.

A reviewer may recommend rejection while another recommends minor revision. That does not mean you should somehow average those recommendations yourself. Your official instruction is the journal’s editorial decision.

Use this priority order

When deciding what to do, consider feedback in approximately this order:

1. Explicit instructions from the editor
2. Major scientific, ethical, methodological, or validity concerns
3. Concerns shared by multiple reviewers
4. Comments affecting the manuscript’s central argument
5. Reviewer-specific requests that materially improve clarity or rigor
6. Minor stylistic or presentation preferences

This is a practical decision framework rather than a universal journal rule. If the editor specifically prioritizes something differently, follow the editorial instructions.

Example

Suppose Reviewer 1 says:

“Please remove the subgroup analysis because the sample is too small to support it.”

Reviewer 2 says:

“Please expand the subgroup analysis and discuss its implications.”

The editor writes:

“Please reconsider whether the subgroup analysis can be adequately supported by the available data.”

Here, the editor’s wording tells you what the central issue is: whether the analysis is defensible.

Your first question should therefore not be “Which reviewer should I obey?”

It should be:

Does the available evidence justify this subgroup analysis?

Your revision should be based on that methodological answer.

Are the Comments Actually Contradictory?

Before treating two comments as conflicting, examine whether they can be satisfied simultaneously.

A surprisingly large proportion of apparent conflicts can be resolved through careful editing.

Four categories of reviewer disagreement

Situation	Example	Appropriate response
Different but compatible	One reviewer wants clearer methods; another wants stronger limitations	Address both
Same concern, different solution	Both think the discussion is unclear but suggest different reorganizations	Solve the underlying clarity problem
Partially conflicting	One wants more detail; another wants a shorter paper	Add necessary detail while removing repetition elsewhere
Directly contradictory	One requests an analysis that another argues is statistically inappropriate	Evaluate scientifically and explain your decision

The distinction matters because you should not escalate every difference to the editor.

Look for the underlying concern

Suppose Reviewer 1 says:

“Expand the literature review.”

Reviewer 2 says:

“The introduction is unnecessarily long.”

These recommendations can coexist.

You might:

• Remove peripheral literature
• Add two or three highly relevant studies
• Tighten repetitive explanation
• Clarify the specific research gap

The revised introduction could actually become shorter and more academically focused while satisfying both concerns.

What Should I Do When I Receive Two Different Responses from My Peer Reviewers? A Step-by-Step Method

A structured process prevents contradictory reviews from turning into a chaotic revision.

Step 1: Read the editor’s decision letter first

Do not begin editing immediately after reading Reviewer 1’s comments.

Start with the editor.

Look for phrases such as:

• “Please pay particular attention to…”
• “The central concern is…”
• “The reviewers raise different views regarding…”
• “We agree with Reviewer 2 that…”
• “Please address the methodological concern before resubmission.”

These statements often reveal the journal’s priorities.

Step 2: Read all reviews completely

Read Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2 before deciding how to respond to either.

A comment that appears severe in isolation may make more sense once you see the complete review.

Similarly, reviewers may agree on the main weakness while recommending different remedies.

Step 3: Create a reviewer-response matrix

Do not manage a complicated revision only from memory.

Create a table such as:

Comment	Reviewer	Category	Action	Manuscript Location
Clarify sampling procedure	Reviewer 1	Method	Revise	Methods, p. 7
Reduce theoretical background	Reviewer 2	Structure	Revise	Introduction, pp. 3–4
Add robustness analysis	Reviewer 1	Analysis	Evaluate	Results
Avoid additional post hoc analysis	Reviewer 2	Analysis	Conflict	Discuss with co-authors/editor

Taylor & Francis recommends cataloguing critiques and organizing responses so each issue can be addressed systematically.

Step 4: Separate comments by type

A useful classification is:

A. Straightforward revisions

Examples:

• Correct terminology
• Add a missing citation
• Clarify a sentence
• Correct a table label
• Explain an abbreviation

Handle these first or alongside larger changes.

B. Substantive but compatible revisions

Examples:

• Clarify methodology
• Expand limitations
• Improve interpretation
• Strengthen justification

These require more work but do not create a reviewer conflict.

C. Conflicting recommendations

Examples:

• Add an analysis versus remove that analysis
• Expand a section versus substantially shorten it
• Reframe the manuscript around Theory A versus Theory B
• Interpret findings cautiously versus make stronger claims

These require deliberate resolution.

D. Requests you cannot reasonably implement

These may include:

• Collecting new data after the study has concluded
• Changing a preregistered procedure retrospectively
• Performing an analysis that is inappropriate for the data
• Expanding the study far beyond its original scope
• Providing information that was never collected

Such requests still require a response.

Step 5: Identify the concern beneath each conflicting recommendation

Write down what each reviewer seems to be worried about.

For example:

Reviewer 1: “Include more subgroup analyses.”

Underlying concern: The main finding may vary across important participant groups.

Reviewer 2: “Avoid multiple subgroup analyses because they may encourage overinterpretation.”

Underlying concern: The manuscript may make claims unsupported by adequately powered or prespecified analyses.

Now the conflict becomes easier to address.

You might decide to:

• Retain one theoretically justified subgroup analysis
• Label it exploratory where appropriate
• Remove unnecessary subgroup analyses
• Explain the limitations
• Moderate the conclusions

That may respond to both reviewers’ real concerns without literally implementing both requests.

Step 6: Check what the evidence permits

Scientific and methodological defensibility should take precedence over merely trying to satisfy everyone.

Ask:

• Does the requested analysis fit the study design?
• Do we have the required data?
• Is the sample adequate for the proposed inference?
• Would this change alter the research question?
• Would the change introduce an unsupported claim?
• Would implementing the recommendation contradict another justified methodological decision?
• Can we support our decision using published literature or methodological reasoning?

Do not make an academically inappropriate change simply because one reviewer requested it.

Step 7: Discuss major conflicts with your co-authors

For multi-author manuscripts, reviewer disagreement should not become the responsibility of one author working alone.

Discuss:

• Which comments materially affect the research
• Whether new analyses are defensible
• Whether conclusions should change
• Whether new limitations should be acknowledged
• Whether additional literature is necessary
• Whether editor clarification is warranted

Agree on one coherent strategy before rewriting major sections.

Step 8: Contact the editor only when necessary

You do not need editorial clarification for every difference of opinion.

Consider contacting the editor when:

• The reviewers give directly incompatible instructions on a central issue
• Following one recommendation would make compliance with another impossible
• The disagreement requires a major redesign of the manuscript
• The requested change may affect research integrity
• The editor’s own instructions are ambiguous
• You cannot determine which interpretation of the requested revision the journal expects

Taylor & Francis advises authors who do not understand review comments or do not know how to respond to seek advice from the journal editor.

Step 9: Revise the manuscript coherently

Do not let the manuscript become a collection of isolated reviewer-requested patches.

After completing individual revisions, reread the entire paper.

Check whether:

• The introduction still leads logically to the research question
• Methods match the revised claims
• Results correspond to the analyses described
• Discussion statements remain supported by the data
• New text does not contradict existing text
• Terminology remains consistent
• The paper still has one coherent argument

Step 10: Prepare a point-by-point response

Springer Nature’s revision guidance describes a point-by-point response to reviewer comments as part of the revision process and advises explaining recommendations that authors decide not to implement.

For each comment:

1. Reproduce or clearly identify the comment.
2. State whether you agree, partially agree, or respectfully disagree.
3. Explain what action you took.
4. Identify where the manuscript was changed.
5. Provide reasoning when no change was made.

How to Prioritize Different Types of Reviewer Feedback

Not every disagreement has the same importance.

Methodological conflicts

Treat these carefully because they may affect validity.

Examples include disagreement about:

• Statistical models
• Sampling
• Control variables
• Qualitative coding
• Missing data
• Sensitivity analysis
• Experimental design
• Inclusion or exclusion criteria

Base your response on methodological justification rather than reviewer preference.

Theoretical conflicts

Two reviewers may favor different frameworks.

You are not necessarily required to restructure the entire paper around whichever theory a reviewer prefers.

Ask whether the proposed framework:

• Directly helps answer the research question
• Fits your evidence
• Improves the manuscript’s conceptual contribution
• Is expected within the journal’s field
• Would require changing the project’s intellectual purpose

Sometimes acknowledging an alternative theoretical interpretation in the discussion is more appropriate than rebuilding the entire manuscript.

Interpretation conflicts

One reviewer may consider your conclusions too strong while another wants a more assertive discussion.

In many cases, the best solution is calibrated language.

Instead of:

“Our findings prove that X causes Y.”

A more defensible statement may be:

“Our findings are consistent with an association between X and Y, although the study design does not establish causality.”

The correct wording depends on the actual study design and evidence.

Structural conflicts

These are often easier to reconcile.

If one reviewer asks for more explanation and another asks for concision, consider increasing information density rather than manuscript length.

You can:

• Remove repetition
• Consolidate paragraphs
• Add precise clarification
• Move supplementary detail
• Replace lengthy description with a table
• Strengthen topic sentences

What If Two Reviewer Requests Cannot Both Be Followed?

Choose the approach that you can defend most strongly, then explain the decision respectfully to both reviewers and the editor.

Do not pretend that you implemented both requests when you did not.

Elsevier’s guidance allows authors to explain why they did not make a requested revision, while Springer Nature recommends a polite scholarly rebuttal where authors disagree with comments.

A useful response structure is:

Acknowledge → Explain → Justify → State the action

For example:

Reviewer 2 asked us to remove the sensitivity analysis. We appreciate this concern, particularly regarding the possibility of overcomplicating the presentation. Reviewer 1, however, requested the analysis as a robustness check. After reconsidering the analytical rationale, we have retained the analysis but moved the full results to the supplementary material and added text explaining its exploratory role. We believe this addresses the need for robustness assessment without placing undue emphasis on the secondary analysis.

Notice what this response does not do.

It does not say:

• “Reviewer 2 is wrong.”
• “Reviewer 1 understands the statistics better.”
• “We ignored this suggestion.”
• “The reviewers contradict each other, so we did nothing.”

Instead, it demonstrates editorial judgment.

Practical Example 1: One Reviewer Wants More Literature and Another Wants a Shorter Introduction

Situation

Reviewer 1:

“The manuscript needs greater engagement with recent research.”

Reviewer 2:

“The introduction is too long and should be substantially reduced.”

Weak response

“We followed Reviewer 1 and added several paragraphs.”

This may worsen Reviewer 2’s concern.

Better approach

Identify irrelevant or repetitive background material and remove it. Then incorporate only the literature most relevant to the research gap.

Possible response

We thank both reviewers for these comments. We agreed that the introduction contained material that could be condensed while also recognizing the need to strengthen engagement with literature directly relevant to the research question. We therefore removed approximately two paragraphs of general background and revised the literature discussion to incorporate the studies most directly relevant to the identified gap.

Why this works

The reviewers were not necessarily asking for opposite outcomes.

One wanted greater relevance.

The other wanted greater concision.

A more focused literature review can provide both.

Practical Example 2: Reviewers Disagree About an Additional Analysis

Situation

Reviewer 1 recommends a new statistical analysis.

Reviewer 2 argues that the same analysis is not appropriate because of the characteristics of the dataset.

What should you do?

Do not choose based on which reviewer sounds more confident.

Evaluate:

• Statistical assumptions
• Sample characteristics
• Research design
• Prespecified analyses
• Field-specific methodological standards
• Whether the proposed analysis answers the research question

If appropriate, consult the statistician or methodological expert on the research team.

Possible response

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to conduct Analysis X. We carefully reconsidered this possibility in light of the study design and Reviewer 2’s related concern. Because [specific methodological reason], we concluded that Analysis X would not provide a reliable basis for inference in the present dataset. We have instead added Analysis Y, which addresses the underlying robustness concern while remaining consistent with the characteristics of the data. The Methods and Results sections have been revised accordingly.

The methodological explanation must, of course, be specific to the actual study.

Practical Example 3: One Reviewer Wants Stronger Claims and Another Wants More Caution

Situation

Reviewer 1:

“The authors undersell the importance of these findings.”

Reviewer 2:

“The conclusions are overstated given the observational design.”

Better approach

Separate importance from causal certainty.

Your findings may be important without proving causation.

You might strengthen the discussion of:

• Practical relevance
• Theoretical implications
• Future research questions

while simultaneously moderating causal language.

Why this works

The first reviewer may be concerned about significance and contribution.

The second may be concerned about evidential boundaries.

Those concerns can coexist.

Practical Example 4: Reviewers Recommend Different Theoretical Frameworks

Reviewer 1 asks you to frame the manuscript using Theory A.

Reviewer 2 considers Theory B more appropriate.

Do not automatically include both theories merely to satisfy both reviewers.

Ask which framework:

• Best matches the research question
• Was genuinely relevant to the study
• Fits the data and interpretation
• Produces conceptual coherence
• Can be defended from the literature

If Theory A remains the strongest framework, you might retain it while acknowledging Theory B as an alternative interpretative lens.

A response might state:

We appreciate the suggestion to consider Theory B. After reviewing its relevance to the present research question, we have added a short discussion acknowledging how Theory B provides an alternative interpretation. However, we have retained Theory A as the primary framework because [specific theoretical justification].

That is academically stronger than combining incompatible theories without a clear rationale.

How to Write a Strong Response Letter When Reviewers Disagree

Your response letter is not an administrative formality. It is the document that shows the editor how carefully you dealt with peer review.

Taylor & Francis recommends organizing responses separately for editor and reviewer comments and making the changes easy to locate.

A useful structure

Opening

Thank the editor and reviewers briefly.

Then organize the document into:

Comments from the Editor

Editor Comment 1
Author Response
Location of Revision

Reviewer 1

Comment 1
Response

Comment 2
Response

Reviewer 2

Comment 1
Response

Comment 2
Response

When you agree

Response:
Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We agree that the description of the participant-selection procedure was insufficiently detailed. We have expanded the Methods section to clarify the inclusion criteria, recruitment procedure, and final sample-selection process. The revised text appears on pages X–Y.

When you partially agree

Response:
We agree with the reviewer that additional explanation is needed. However, rather than adding a separate analysis, we have clarified the rationale for the existing analysis and expanded the limitations section because [reason]. These changes appear on pages X and Y.

When you respectfully disagree

Response:
We appreciate this important suggestion. After carefully considering the proposed change, we have retained the original analytical approach because [specific methodological or theoretical reason]. To ensure that our reasoning is clearer to readers, we have added an explanation of this decision to the Methods section on page X.

When another reviewer’s comment affects your decision

Be careful not to make the response sound like reviewers are being played against one another.

Avoid:

“Reviewer 1 disagrees with you, so we followed Reviewer 1.”

Prefer:

“We considered this recommendation together with the related concern raised elsewhere in the reviews. After reassessing the methodological implications, we adopted [approach] because…”

Focus on the scholarly reasoning.

When Should You Ask the Editor for Clarification?

Contacting the editor can be appropriate when the disagreement is consequential and cannot be responsibly resolved through ordinary revision.

You might ask for clarification when:

• One reviewer asks you to remove an entire analysis while another requires it as a condition of revision.
• One reviewer requests substantial new experiments while another tells you to narrow the manuscript.
• The recommended revisions would move the article in fundamentally different conceptual directions.
• Following the requests would require incompatible methodological choices.
• The editor’s decision letter requires you to address both demands without indicating priority.
• The revision could materially change the study’s scope or central research question.

Keep the message concise.

Explain:

1. The two relevant comments
2. Why they appear incompatible
3. The options you have considered
4. The direction you currently believe is most defensible
5. The specific clarification you are requesting

Do not ask the editor to adjudicate minor wording preferences that you can resolve yourself.

Common Mistakes When Reviewers Give Different Responses

Mistake 1: Following only the more positive reviewer

A supportive review may naturally feel more convincing.

But your response should be determined by scholarly merit and editorial priorities, not by which reviewer liked the manuscript most.

Mistake 2: Ignoring the reviewer whose recommendation you reject

Every substantive comment deserves a response.

If you do not make the requested change, explain why.

Mistake 3: Trying to implement incompatible suggestions simultaneously

This can produce an incoherent paper.

A manuscript revised to please everyone without intellectual judgment may become less focused rather than stronger.

Mistake 4: Assuming disagreement means one reviewer is incompetent

A reviewer may have misunderstood something because the manuscript itself was unclear.

Taylor & Francis specifically advises authors to treat apparent misunderstandings as opportunities to clarify their communication rather than automatically assuming the reviewer is wrong.

Ask:

What made this interpretation possible?

If an expert reviewer misunderstood the argument, future readers might also misunderstand it.

Mistake 5: Responding emotionally

Avoid defensive expressions such as:

• “The reviewer clearly failed to understand…”
• “This criticism is completely incorrect.”
• “We strongly reject this unreasonable request.”

Replace them with evidence-based language.

For example:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s concern. We may not have explained this distinction sufficiently clearly in the original manuscript. We have now revised…”

Mistake 6: Making unsupported changes simply to obtain acceptance

Peer review should improve scholarly communication and research quality.

Do not:

• Invent data
• Add analyses without a valid basis
• Manufacture citations
• Alter research procedures retrospectively
• Claim experiments were conducted when they were not
• Make conclusions stronger than the evidence permits

Researchers remain responsible for the integrity of the final manuscript.

Mistake 7: Forgetting the editor

The editor is the person integrating the reviewers’ recommendations into an editorial decision.

If the editor specifically identifies a concern as essential, give it appropriate priority.

Reviewer-Conflict Decision Guide

When two comments appear incompatible, use this sequence:

Question 1: Can both recommendations be implemented without harming the manuscript?

If yes → implement both.

If no → continue.

Question 2: Are the reviewers actually identifying the same underlying problem?

If yes → solve the underlying problem rather than mechanically following either proposed solution.

If no → continue.

Question 3: Has the editor indicated a priority?

If yes → follow the editorial direction while responding respectfully to both reviewers.

If no → continue.

Question 4: Is one recommendation better supported methodologically, theoretically, or evidentially?

If yes → choose the defensible approach and explain why.

If uncertain → continue.

Question 5: Would the decision substantially alter the study or manuscript?

If no → use your scholarly judgment and explain the revision.

If yes → consider asking the editor for clarification.

Checklist Before Resubmitting a Manuscript With Conflicting Reviews

• I have read the editor’s decision separately from the reviewer reports.
• I have listed every editor and reviewer comment.
• I have identified which reviewer comments agree.
• I have distinguished apparent conflicts from genuine contradictions.
• I have identified the underlying concern behind each major comment.
• I have checked whether conflicting suggestions can be reconciled.
• My methodological decisions remain scientifically defensible.
• I have not added unsupported analyses, data, citations, or claims.
• I have addressed every reviewer comment in the response document.
• I have explained every substantive suggestion that I chose not to implement.
• My language remains professional and non-defensive.
• Every claimed revision actually appears in the revised manuscript.
• Page, section, table, or line references are accurate.
• The revised manuscript remains internally consistent.
• All co-authors have reviewed major scientific changes where appropriate.
• I have checked the journal’s revision and resubmission instructions.
• I have contacted the editor if an unresolved contradiction requires editorial guidance.
• I have retained clean records of the original manuscript, revised manuscript, and response letter.

How Contentxprtz Can Support the Peer-Review Revision Process

Some reviewer conflicts can be resolved through careful self-review, particularly when the recommendations concern straightforward wording, organization, or clarification.

Professional academic editing may become useful when the reports involve multiple overlapping concerns, substantial restructuring, unclear reviewer requests, or difficulty explaining your decisions in a professional response letter.

Contentxprtz describes its work as including academic editing, research-paper editing, publication assistance, and reviewer-response support, with experience serving researchers internationally since 2010.

For a manuscript undergoing revision, support may include:

• Organizing reviewer comments into an actionable revision plan
• Checking whether all reviewer concerns have been addressed
• Improving clarity after substantive revisions
• Reviewing manuscript structure and argument flow
• Checking consistency between revised sections
• Refining point-by-point responses
• Improving language for ESL researchers
• Identifying places where a response sounds defensive or ambiguous
• Checking whether manuscript changes correspond accurately with the response letter

Researchers who need focused help can explore the Contentxprtz research paper editing service or broader academic editing support.

Such assistance should strengthen communication and presentation while preserving the researcher’s intellectual contribution, decisions, evidence, interpretations, and responsibility for the final submission.

Summary: What to Do When Peer Reviewers Give Different Responses

When two peer reviewers give different responses, do not immediately choose one reviewer over the other.

Start with the editor’s decision letter. Then compare the reviews systematically.

Determine whether the recommendations are:

• Compatible
• Focused on different issues
• Different proposed solutions to the same problem
• Partially contradictory
• Completely incompatible

Whenever possible, address the underlying concerns of both reviewers.

When that is impossible, use methodological evidence, theoretical reasoning, the journal’s requirements, and the editor’s guidance to determine the most defensible course of action.

Then explain your decision clearly in the response letter.

A strong revision does not demonstrate that you blindly followed every suggestion. It demonstrates that you engaged seriously with every comment, improved the manuscript where appropriate, and provided reasoned explanations for the decisions you made.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What should I do when I receive two different responses from my peer reviewers?

First, read the editor’s decision letter and then compare both reviewer reports systematically. Do not assume that you must choose one review and disregard the other.

Identify which comments agree, which address separate issues, and which genuinely contradict one another. Many apparent conflicts can be reconciled. For example, one reviewer may request additional explanation while another asks you to shorten the manuscript; you may be able to add a concise clarification while removing repetitive material elsewhere.

For genuinely incompatible requests, determine which approach is better supported by your study design, evidence, methodology, journal requirements, and the editor’s instructions. Explain the reasoning in your point-by-point response.

If the conflict concerns a fundamental change and the editor has provided no clear direction, a concise request for editorial clarification may be appropriate.

2. Do I have to follow every peer reviewer’s suggestion?

You should address every substantive comment, but addressing a comment does not necessarily mean implementing every requested change.

Elsevier and Springer Nature both recognize that authors may disagree with reviewer recommendations when they provide an explanation for their decision.

If you decline a suggestion, avoid simply writing “we disagree.”

Explain:

• Why the requested change may not be appropriate
• What evidence or methodological reasoning supports your decision
• Whether you made an alternative revision
• Whether you clarified the manuscript to address the underlying concern

Respectful disagreement is part of scholarly discussion. Unsupported dismissal is not.

3. Whose opinion matters more: Reviewer 1 or Reviewer 2?

Neither reviewer automatically has greater authority merely because of the reviewer number or the strength of their recommendation.

The editorial decision is the key instruction. Reviewers advise the journal, while the handling editor evaluates the reviews and decides how the manuscript should proceed. Wiley notes that editors consider all returned reports and may seek another opinion if reviewers differ substantially.

If the editor does not prioritize one review, evaluate the comments according to their scientific and methodological merits.

A detailed, evidence-supported criticism should generally receive serious attention regardless of whether it comes from Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2, or another reviewer.

4. Should I tell one reviewer that another reviewer disagrees with them?

Usually, avoid presenting the situation as a contest between reviewers.

Writing “Reviewer 1 disagrees with your recommendation” can sound unnecessarily adversarial and does not explain the scholarly basis for your decision.

Instead, say that you considered the related concerns raised across the reviews and then explain the reasoning behind the selected approach.

For example:

“After considering the comments concerning this analysis, we reassessed its methodological justification and decided to retain it with additional limitations and clarification.”

The focus should remain on the manuscript, evidence, and reasoning—not on determining which reviewer is “right.”

5. What if one reviewer says accept and another says reject?

Do not treat reviewer recommendations as votes that you need to reconcile yourself.

The journal editor evaluates reviewer reports and makes the editorial decision. Wiley explains that where reviews differ widely, the handling editor may seek an additional opinion before deciding.

Your next step depends on the official decision you receive.

If the editor requests revision, respond carefully to the substantive concerns in both reports regardless of their original recommendations.

If the editor rejects the manuscript, check the journal’s appeal policy before deciding whether an appeal is justified. An appeal should normally be based on specific substantive grounds rather than disappointment with the decision.

6. Can I ask the editor which reviewer’s advice I should follow?

Yes, when the recommendations are genuinely incompatible and the choice would materially affect the manuscript.

Before contacting the editor, determine whether you can reconcile the comments yourself. Editors usually do not need to resolve minor stylistic differences.

A clarification request is more justified when the conflict affects:

• Methodology
• Major analyses
• Central theoretical framing
• Study scope
• Interpretation of findings
• Additional experiments
• A substantial restructuring of the paper

Keep the request brief and neutral. Explain both recommendations, why following both appears impossible, and the approach you currently believe is most defensible.

7. What if a reviewer misunderstood my manuscript?

Treat the misunderstanding as potentially useful evidence that the manuscript needs clarification.

Taylor & Francis advises authors not to automatically assume that a reviewer is wrong when a point appears to have been misunderstood; unclear communication may have contributed to the problem.

Ask yourself:

• Was the key definition easy to find?
• Was the methodological rationale explicit?
• Was important information buried later in the paper?
• Could the wording reasonably support the reviewer’s interpretation?

You can respectfully clarify the misunderstanding in the response letter while also revising the manuscript so future readers are less likely to encounter the same problem.

8. What if a reviewer asks for an analysis or experiment that I cannot perform?

Explain the limitation clearly rather than pretending that the requested work has been completed.

A request may be impractical because the required data were not collected, the study has concluded, the proposed analysis is not methodologically appropriate, or the work would fundamentally change the scope of the article.

State:

1. Why the request cannot reasonably be implemented
2. Whether you agree with the underlying concern
3. What alternative revision you made
4. Whether you added an explicit limitation

Springer Nature advises authors to provide sufficient explanation when recommended additional experiments or analyses are not undertaken because the authors believe they would not improve the paper.

9. How should I organize a response letter when two reviewers disagree?

Keep separate sections for the editor and each reviewer, and respond to comments point by point.

A useful format is:

Reviewer Comment

The original comment.

Author Response

Your response, including whether you revised the paper and why.

Change in Manuscript

The location and, where useful, the revised wording.

If one response affects another reviewer’s concern, you may cross-reference the relevant revision, but still provide a response under both comments.

The objective is to make re-evaluation easy. A reviewer or editor should not have to search the entire manuscript to determine whether a concern was addressed.

10. When should I seek professional academic editing support after peer review?

Professional support may be useful when reviewer feedback requires substantial restructuring, extensive language revision, a complicated point-by-point response, or careful alignment between the manuscript and response letter.

It may be particularly helpful for researchers writing in an additional language or authors who understand the scientific revisions they want to make but find it difficult to communicate those decisions concisely and diplomatically.

However, editing support should not replace the researcher’s intellectual responsibility. Authors remain responsible for methodological choices, evidence, interpretations, citations, research integrity, and the final submission.

Where appropriate, a research paper editing service can help improve clarity, structure, consistency, and reviewer-response communication while the researcher retains responsibility for the scholarly content.

About the Author

Dr. Aanya Mehta
Research Writer & Professional Business Communicator

Dr. Aanya Mehta is a research-oriented writer and professional communicator with a strong focus on accuracy, clarity, and evidence-based insight. Her work combines analytical thinking with accessible writing, helping readers understand complex business topics through well-researched, credible, and practical content.

Conclusion

Receiving contradictory peer-review reports can initially make revision feel more complicated than receiving a single negative report. Yet the disagreement can also reveal something useful: different expert readers are seeing your manuscript from different perspectives.

Your responsibility is not to make every reviewer agree.

Instead:

• Read the editor’s decision carefully.
• Identify the underlying concern behind each comment.
• Separate compatible recommendations from genuine contradictions.
• Make changes that strengthen the manuscript.
• Preserve methodological and academic integrity.
• Explain decisions you cannot implement.
• Ask the editor for clarification when a major contradiction cannot otherwise be resolved.
• Provide a complete, respectful, point-by-point response.

If the conflict is mainly about wording or organization, careful self-review may be enough. If the revision involves extensive restructuring, language problems, multiple conflicting comments, or a difficult response letter, appropriate academic editing or research paper editing support may help you communicate your decisions more clearly.

The strongest response to conflicting peer review is not blind compliance. It is careful scholarly judgment made transparent to the editor and reviewers.

“At Contentxprtz, we don’t just edit; we help ideas reach their fullest potential.”