How to Handle Conflicting Reviewer Feedback: 5 Strategies That Actually Work

Reviewer 1: “This paper is too brief. The authors must expand the discussion section and add substantially more methodological detail.”

Reviewer 2: “This manuscript is too long and unfocused. The discussion should be condensed by at least 30%.”

You, staring at your screen: “How am I supposed to make it both longer AND shorter?”

If you’ve ever received peer review feedback where reviewers disagree so fundamentally that satisfying both seems impossible, take a deep breath. You’re not alone, you’re not losing your mind, and most importantly, this doesn’t mean your manuscript is fatally flawed.

When reviewers disagree, it’s actually one of the most common scenarios in academic publishing. Research on peer review patterns shows that substantively conflicting comments appear in 30-40% of manuscripts receiving multiple reviews. One recent analysis of over 1,000 revised submissions found that contradictory reviewer feedback was the second most common challenge authors reported, right after “requests for impossible additional experiments.”

Here’s what most researchers don’t realize: conflicting reviews often indicate you’re working on interesting, boundary-pushing research that engages experts in different ways. When reviewers disagree, it usually means your work touches on areas where the field itself hasn’t reached consensus, or that you’re bridging disciplines with different standards and expectations.

The real question isn’t “Why are my reviewers contradicting each other?” It’s “How do I navigate these conflicts strategically to strengthen my manuscript and move toward acceptance?”

This guide will show you exactly how to do that.

In This Comprehensive Guide:

• Quick Answer: 5 Strategies
• Classic Conflict Scenarios
• Why Reviewers Disagree
• Strategy 1: Address Each Separately
• Strategy 2: Identify Underlying Issues
• Strategy 3: Make Transparent Choices
• Strategy 4: Ask Editor for Guidance
• Response Letter Templates
• Common Pitfalls to Avoid
• Real-World Example
• FAQ

Quick Answer: 5 Strategies for Handling Conflicting Reviewer Feedback

When reviewers contradict each other, use these proven approaches:

The 5 Strategies at a Glance

Note: These strategies aren’t mutually exclusive—you might use different strategies for different conflicts within the same revision.

Strategy 1: Address Each Reviewer Separately
Respond to each reviewer independently, showing how you’ve addressed their specific concerns without forcing artificial compromise.

Strategy 2: Identify the Underlying Issue
Look beyond contradictory suggestions to find the deeper problem both reviewers sensed but diagnosed differently.

Strategy 3: Make a Transparent Choice
When suggestions are mutually exclusive, choose one approach with clear, evidence-based reasoning documented in your response letter.

Strategy 4: Strategic Revision That Satisfies Both
Find solutions that address the legitimate concern behind each conflicting comment (example: expand methodology while cutting redundant introduction).

Strategy 5: Ask the Editor for Guidance
When conflicts involve fundamental changes to study design or scope, request editorial direction before investing months of work.

The key insight: Your goal isn’t pleasing everyone—it’s addressing the legitimate underlying concerns each reviewer raised, even if you can’t implement their specific suggestions.

Read on for detailed implementation strategies, templates, and real examples.

How Severe Is Your Conflict? Quick Assessment

Use this quick assessment to determine which strategy to prioritize:

Level 1: Surface Conflict (Easy to Resolve)

• Reviewers want different things but in different sections
• Conflict is about presentation, not substance
• Both suggestions are achievable simultaneously
• → Use Strategy 1 or 4: Address separately or find strategic balance

Level 2: Moderate Conflict (Requires Careful Navigation)

• Reviewers interpret your work differently
• Conflicting priorities about what to emphasize
• Different methodological preferences
• Use Strategy 2: Identify and address the underlying issue

Level 3: Severe Conflict (May Need Editorial Input)

• Mutually exclusive requests requiring months of work
• Fundamental disagreement about your approach’s validity
• One reviewer’s request seems unreasonable or outside field norms
• Use Strategy 3 or 5: Make a transparent choice or contact the editor

Most conflicts fall into Levels 1-2 and are resolvable with thoughtful response letters.

The Classic Conflict Scenarios

Before we dive into solutions, let’s recognize the most common types of contradictory feedback you’re likely to encounter. Understanding these patterns helps you realize you’re not alone—and that each type has its own strategic approach.

The Length Paradox

This is perhaps the most frequent conflict. One reviewer thinks you need more detail, more background, more explanation. The other thinks you’re drowning readers in unnecessary information. Both might be right about different parts of your manuscript. Reviewer 1 might be correctly identifying a genuinely underexplained methodology, while Reviewer 2 is spot-on about your redundant introduction.

The Methodology Battle

One reviewer insists you should use parametric statistical tests. Another says non-parametric tests are essential. Or one wants qualitative depth while another demands quantitative rigor. These conflicts often arise when reviewers come from adjacent but distinct methodological traditions.

The Scope Tug-of-War

Reviewer 1 wants you to broaden your paper to include additional contexts, populations, or variables. Reviewer 2 wants you to narrow your focus and go deeper on what you’ve already covered. This happens frequently with interdisciplinary work where reviewers bring different disciplinary expectations.

The Interpretation Divide

Both reviewers looked at your results, but one thinks they support Theory A while the other thinks they contradict it. Or one sees your findings as groundbreaking while another views them as incremental. These conflicts reveal genuine scientific uncertainty—which is actually useful information.

The Priority Puzzle

One reviewer thinks your main contribution is methodological innovation. Another thinks it’s the theoretical framework. A third might focus entirely on practical applications. They’re all reading the same paper but valuing different aspects, which tells you something important about how you’ve framed your work.

Why Reviewers Disagree (And Why That’s Normal)

Understanding why conflicts arise helps you respond strategically rather than defensively.

Different Expertise Levels

Your reviewers might include one deep expert in your specific niche and another from an adjacent field who brings a broader perspective. The expert catches technical details the generalist misses. The generalist spots communication problems the expert doesn’t notice because they’re too familiar with the jargon. Both sets of observations can be valuable, even when they point in different directions.

Different Priorities and Values

Some reviewers prioritize theoretical contributions. Others care most about practical applications. Some value comprehensive literature reviews; others want concise, focused arguments. Some prefer conservative claims backed by extensive evidence; others appreciate bold hypotheses. These aren’t right or wrong—they’re different philosophies about what makes good scholarship.

Different Familiarity With the Journal

A reviewer who’s been with a journal for years knows its specific expectations and audience. A first-time reviewer for that journal brings fresh eyes but might not fully grasp what the journal typically publishes. Their differing advice might reflect different understandings of where your paper fits in the journal’s niche.

Legitimate Scientific Disagreement

Sometimes reviewers disagree because the science itself isn’t settled. If your paper touches on a contested area—whether certain statistical methods are appropriate, how to interpret specific findings, what theoretical framework best explains phenomena—reviewers might genuinely and reasonably arrive at different conclusions. This doesn’t mean your paper is wrong; it means you’re working on interesting, unresolved questions.

Human Variability

Let’s be honest: reviewers are human. They have different reading styles, attention spans, and pet peeves. One might focus heavily on the first half of your manuscript (where they have energy and attention) while barely skimming the second half. Another might do the opposite. This can create conflicts that say more about the reviewing process than about your manuscript.

Your First Response: Don’t Panic (And Don’t Try to Please Everyone)

When you first encounter conflicting reviews, your instinct might be to find a middle ground that satisfies both reviewers. This is almost always a mistake.

Imagine Reviewer 1 says, “Add three more pages to your discussion,” and Reviewer 2 says, “Cut three pages from your discussion.” The middle ground—keeping it the same length—doesn’t actually address either concern. Reviewer 1 still thinks you’re missing important content. Reviewer 2 still thinks you’re too verbose. You’ve satisfied nobody.

Instead of seeking compromise, your goal is to address the legitimate underlying concerns each reviewer has raised, even if you can’t implement their specific suggestions. This requires some detective work to figure out what’s really bothering each reviewer.

Strategy 1: Address Each Reviewer Separately

The most straightforward approach is to respond to each reviewer independently, explaining how you’ve addressed their specific concerns. This works especially well when conflicts arise from reviewers prioritizing different aspects of your paper. When crafting your rebuttal letter to reviewers, this separate-response structure keeps your arguments clear and organized.

Here’s how this might look in practice. Let’s say Reviewer 1 wants an expanded methodology while Reviewer 2 wants a shorter overall manuscript. Your response might read:

“We recognize that Reviewer 1 requested additional methodological detail while Reviewer 2 suggested reducing overall length. We have addressed both concerns through strategic revisions that improve focus and clarity.

In response to Reviewer 1, we have expanded the methodology section to include the specific details requested, including detailed descriptions of our sampling strategy, specific model parameters, and validation procedures. This adds approximately 400 words to Section 2.3.

In response to Reviewer 2, we have streamlined other sections to improve the manuscript’s focus. Specifically, we condensed the literature review by removing redundant material, moved some detailed results to supplementary materials, and tightened the discussion to focus on our core contributions. These changes remove approximately 600 words across Sections 1, 3, and 4.

The net result is a manuscript that is 200 words shorter than the original but provides the methodological depth Reviewer 1 correctly identified as necessary. We believe this enhances both clarity and rigor.”

Notice what this response does. It acknowledges both reviewers explicitly, shows you’ve taken both seriously, explains specifically what you did, and frames the combined changes as an improvement. You’ve balanced the concerns without trying to find a meaningless middle ground.

Strategy 2: Identify the Underlying Issue

Sometimes contradictory suggestions point to a deeper problem that both reviewers have sensed but diagnosed differently.

Consider this scenario. Reviewer 1 says, “The main objective seems to be understanding mechanism X. Please reframe your introduction accordingly.” Reviewer 2 says, “The main objective appears to be predicting outcome Y. Please reframe your introduction to reflect this.”

These comments contradict each other on the surface. But combined, they’re telling you something crucial: your research objective isn’t clear. Both reviewers struggled to identify your core purpose, and each guessed differently.

The solution isn’t to choose one interpretation. It’s to clarify your actual objective so dramatically that no future reader could misunderstand. Your response might say:

“Both reviewers identified confusion about our primary research objective, and we recognize this reflects insufficient clarity in our original introduction. Our core objective is to [state it clearly], which involves both understanding mechanism X and predicting outcome Y as interconnected aims rather than separate goals.

We have substantially revised the introduction to make this dual objective explicit from the outset. Specifically, we’ve added a clear objective statement in the opening paragraph, restructured the introduction to show how mechanistic understanding and predictive modeling complement each other in our framework, and revised our research questions to reflect this integrated approach.”

Now you’ve addressed both reviewers’ concerns without following either’s specific suggestion, because you recognized they were both pointing at the same underlying problem.

Strategy 3: Make a Transparent Choice

Sometimes reviewers genuinely disagree about the best approach, and you can’t implement both suggestions. In these cases, transparency is your best policy. Understanding how to respond to peer review comments when you need to choose between conflicting suggestions requires careful documentation of your reasoning.

Let’s say Reviewer 1 insists you remove Table 1 (they think it’s redundant with your text). Reviewer 2 insists you expand Table 1 (they think it’s the clearest way to present the data). You need to pick one approach.

Here’s how to handle this professionally:

“Reviewers 1 and 2 offered conflicting advice regarding Table 1. After careful consideration with our co-authors, we have decided to retain and expand Table 1, as Reviewer 2 suggested. We believe this decision best serves readers for the following reasons: [give your specific rationale with evidence].

We understand Reviewer 1’s concern about potential redundancy with the text. To address this while implementing Reviewer 2’s suggestion, we have revised the corresponding text to focus on interpretation rather than repeating the values shown in the table. This approach provides both the at-a-glance comparison Reviewer 2 correctly identified as valuable and the streamlined text that addresses Reviewer 1’s valid concern about efficiency.”

Notice the structure: acknowledge both reviewers, state your decision clearly, provide evidence-based reasoning, and show how you’ve attempted to address the valid concern from the reviewer whose suggestion you didn’t implement fully. This demonstrates thoughtful decision-making rather than arbitrary choice.

Strategy 4: Ask the Editor for Guidance

Most of the time, you’ll handle conflicts directly in your response letter. But occasionally, conflicts are so fundamental that you need editorial input. This is appropriate when reviewers request mutually exclusive changes that would fundamentally alter your paper’s scope or approach.

When reaching out to the editor, keep it brief, professional, and focused on the specific conflict:

“Dear Dr. Martinez,

Thank you again for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We are working through the reviewer comments and have a question about how best to proceed with one specific issue.

Reviewer 1 recommends that we conduct additional experiments at temperatures below 20°C, while Reviewer 2 recommends experiments above 40°C. Each provides a compelling scientific rationale for their suggestion. However, we cannot feasibly conduct both sets of additional experiments within a reasonable revision timeline, and each would take the paper in a somewhat different direction scientifically.

Could you provide guidance on which direction would better align with the journal’s interests? Alternatively, if you believe we should attempt to justify our current temperature range more thoroughly rather than adding new experiments, we would appreciate that guidance as well.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best regards, [Your name].”

Most editors will appreciate this professionalism and will provide clear direction. After all, managing conflicting reviews is part of their job.

When to Contact the Editor vs. Handling It Yourself

As a general rule, handle most conflicts yourself in your response letter. But consider contacting the editor when:

The conflict involves fundamental changes to study design or scope that would require months of additional work, and you need to know which direction the journal prefers before investing that time.

The conflict suggests one reviewer may have misunderstood something fundamental about your study, and you’re uncertain whether to simply clarify or whether the editor needs to intervene.

One reviewer’s suggestions seem outside reasonable bounds (requesting work that’s genuinely impossible within journal norms), and you want confirmation that you’re justified in declining.

You’ve genuinely tried to address both concerns, but the conflict is truly irreconcilable without editorial guidance.

Don’t contact the editor simply because addressing the conflict is difficult or because you don’t like one reviewer’s suggestions. The editor expects you to navigate most conflicts professionally in your response letter.

Crafting Your Written Response

When you’re ready to write your formal response, here are the elements that make it effective:

Acknowledge Both Perspectives Explicitly

Start by showing you understand both reviewers’ concerns. This immediately signals you’re not dismissing anyone’s input. For example: “Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2 both identified issues with our statistical approach, though they recommended different solutions.”

Explain Your Decision-Making Process

Don’t just state what you did—explain your reasoning. Did you consult statistical references? Discuss with co-authors? Run additional analyses to test which approach worked better. Share this thought process. It shows that the conflict received serious consideration.

Be Specific About Changes

Always include exact locations. “We have revised Section 3.2 (pages 14-15, lines 287-318) to…” This makes it easy for reviewers to verify your changes and shows attention to detail.

Maintain Respect for Both Reviewers

Even when choosing one reviewer’s suggestion over another’s, express appreciation for both perspectives. “We thank Reviewer 1 for raising this important methodological consideration,” followed by “We also appreciate Reviewer 2’s suggestion about alternative approaches.”

Show How Your Solution Improves the Manuscript

Frame your response positively. Don’t just explain how you satisfied requirements; explain how the changes strengthen your paper. “These revisions have substantially improved the clarity of our argument and will help readers better understand…”

Step-by-Step Response Letter Template for Conflicting Comments

Here’s a complete template structure you can adapt for your specific situation:

Template: When Reviewers Want Opposite Changes

Dear Dr. [Editor Name],

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript "[Title]" (Manuscript #[ID]). We appreciate the thoughtful feedback from both reviewers and believe the manuscript is substantially improved as a result.

We recognize that Reviewers 1 and 2 provided conflicting guidance on [specific issue]. Below we explain how we have addressed both concerns while strengthening the manuscript.

---

**ADDRESSING THE LENGTH/SCOPE/METHODOLOGY CONFLICT**

Reviewer 1 recommended: [quote their suggestion]
Reviewer 2 recommended: [quote their conflicting suggestion]

Our approach: We have addressed the underlying concerns of both reviewers through the following strategic revisions:

**In response to Reviewer 1's concern about [underlying issue]:**
- [Specific change #1 with location]
- [Specific change #2 with location]
- [Rationale for why this addresses their core concern]

**In response to Reviewer 2's concern about [underlying issue]:**
- [Specific change #1 with location]
- [Specific change #2 with location]
- [Rationale for why this addresses their core concern]

**Net result:** [Explain how combined changes improve the manuscript]

---

**REVIEWER 1 - Point-by-Point Responses**

Comment 1.1: [Quote exact comment]
Response: [Your response]
Changes: [Locations]

[Continue for all Reviewer 1 comments]

---

**REVIEWER 2 - Point-by-Point Responses**

Comment 2.1: [Quote exact comment]
Response: [Your response]
Changes: [Locations]

[Continue for all Reviewer 2 comments]

---

**SUMMARY OF MAJOR CHANGES**

1. [Change addressing Reviewer 1's primary concern]
2. [Change addressing Reviewer 2's primary concern]
3. [Changes addressing areas where reviewers agreed]
4. [Additional improvements made proactively]

We believe these revisions have substantially strengthened the manuscript and addressed all reviewer concerns. We welcome any additional feedback.

Sincerely,
[Your names]

Template: When Making a Transparent Choice Between Conflicting Suggestions

**RESOLVING CONFLICTING RECOMMENDATIONS ON [SPECIFIC ISSUE]:**

Reviewers 1 and 2 offered conflicting advice regarding [specific element]:

- Reviewer 1 recommended: [their suggestion]
- Reviewer 2 recommended: [opposite suggestion]

After careful consideration with our co-authors and consultation with [relevant literature/methodological standards/domain experts], we have implemented Reviewer [1 or 2]'s suggestion for the following reasons:

1. [Evidence-based reason #1]
2. [Evidence-based reason #2]
3. [How this aligns with journal standards or field norms]

We understand Reviewer [other number]'s concern about [their underlying worry]. To address this valid point while implementing Reviewer [chosen number]'s suggestion, we have also:

- [Specific accommodation of the other reviewer's core concern]
- [How this balances both perspectives]

This approach [explain how it improves the manuscript overall].

Changes made: [Specific locations]

Template: When Asking Editor for Guidance Mid-Revision

Subject: Clarification Request - Conflicting Reviewer Recommendations (MS#[ID])

Dear Dr. [Editor Name],

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We are actively working through the reviewer comments and have a question about how best to proceed with one specific conflict.

**The conflict:**
- Reviewer 1 recommends: [specific suggestion requiring substantial work]
- Reviewer 2 recommends: [opposite suggestion requiring substantial work]

Both suggestions have scientific merit, but they are mutually exclusive and would take the manuscript in different directions. Implementing both is not feasible within a reasonable revision timeline.

**Our question:**
Could you provide guidance on which direction would better align with the journal's interests and editorial vision? We want to invest our revision effort in the direction most valuable for [Journal Name]'s readership.

Alternatively, if you believe we should strengthen our justification of the current approach rather than pursuing either new direction, we would appreciate that guidance as well.

Thank you for your consideration. We are happy to discuss this further if helpful.

Best regards,
[Your Name]

Using These Templates:

1. Start with the template structure, but personalize it completely
2. Replace bracketed sections with your specific content
3. Adjust tone to match your field’s conventions (more formal for medical journals, slightly less formal for social sciences)
4. Always include exact quotes from reviewer comments
5. Always provide specific locations (page/line numbers or section references)
6. Keep it professional and appreciative throughout

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

As you navigate conflicting reviews, watch out for these mistakes that can undermine even good responses:

The Meaningless Middle Ground

Don’t split the difference just to appear balanced. Adding one page when one reviewer wanted three and another wanted you to cut three doesn’t help anyone. Address the underlying issues instead.

Ignoring the Minority Opinion

Just because two reviewers agree and one disagrees doesn’t mean the lone dissenter is wrong. That single reviewer might be catching something important that the others missed. Take minority opinions seriously, even if you ultimately don’t follow their specific suggestions.

Getting Defensive

It’s tempting to point out that reviewers contradict each other as evidence that their comments aren’t valid. Resist this. Conflicting reviews are normal and don’t invalidate the feedback. Stay professional and solution-oriented.

Failing to Document

When you’ve made a transparent choice between conflicting suggestions, make sure you’ve documented your reasoning clearly. Future reviewers (or the same reviewers on resubmission) need to understand your thought process.

Assuming the Editor Will Arbitrate

Unless you specifically ask, don’t assume the editor will tell reviewers you were right to follow one suggestion over another. Your response letter needs to make the case persuasively for any choice you’ve made.

What Conflicting Reviews Teach You About Your Manuscript

Here’s a perspective shift that might help: contradictory reviews are actually valuable diagnostic information.

When reviewers disagree about whether your paper is too long or too short, they might both be right—different sections might have different problems. Use their conflict to identify where you need to cut (the parts that even sympathetic readers find excessive) and where you need to expand (the parts that even engaged readers find confusing).

When reviewers interpret your results differently, that probably means your discussion isn’t guiding readers clearly enough through your interpretation. Their disagreement shows you where to add more explicit signposting about how you think the results should be understood.

When reviewers prioritize different contributions, it suggests your paper might actually make multiple contributions but doesn’t clearly articulate their relative importance. This is useful feedback about framing.

In other words, conflicts often reveal not that reviewers are being difficult, but that your manuscript has genuine ambiguities that need addressing. The conflicts are symptoms pointing you toward the diagnosis.

A Real-World Example

Let’s walk through how this might work with a concrete example. Imagine you’ve submitted a psychology paper about a new cognitive intervention.

Reviewer 1’s main points:

• Expand theoretical background (too brief)
• Add more methodological detail
• Include additional control conditions
• Results support the intervention’s efficacy

Reviewer 2’s main points:

• Reduce theoretical background (unnecessary detail)
• Methodology is clear
• Current controls are sufficient
• Results are interesting, but the interpretation is overclaimed

At first glance, these reviews seem hopelessly contradictory. But look closer:

Both reviewers read the same results. They just disagree about how strongly they support your claims. That’s your primary issue to address: clarify and perhaps moderate your claims.

They disagree about theory and methods, but notice that Reviewer 1 wants additions while Reviewer 2 wants reductions. Maybe different sections have different problems. Perhaps your theoretical background includes some essential content (that needs expansion) and some tangential material (that needs cutting).

Your response strategy might be:

“We appreciate both reviewers’ thoughtful engagement with our work. While they offered different perspectives on several points, we believe their combined feedback has helped us substantially improve the manuscript’s balance and clarity.

Regarding the theoretical background, we recognize that Reviewer 1 found it too brief while Reviewer 2 felt it contained unnecessary detail. On closer examination, we realize both were partially correct. We have expanded our discussion of the core theoretical mechanism, which Reviewer 1 correctly identified as underdeveloped. Simultaneously, we have removed historical background material that, while interesting, was tangential to our specific contribution, as Reviewer 2 noted. The result is a theoretical section that is similar in length but much more focused and directly relevant to our study.

Regarding our claims about efficacy, we have carefully considered both reviewers’ interpretations of our results. We have moderated our claims in several places to better reflect the preliminary nature of this work while still acknowledging the significant effects we observed. Specifically, we’ve revised the abstract, discussion, and conclusion to emphasize that while our results are promising, replication and extension studies are needed before drawing strong conclusions about clinical efficacy.”

See how this works? You’ve addressed both reviewers by recognizing the underlying issues their conflicting comments revealed. Your paper is now clearer, more focused, and makes more appropriate claims.

Learning to Handle Conflicts Will Make You a Better Writer

Here’s the silver lining to all of this: learning to navigate contradictory feedback makes you better at scientific writing.

You start to anticipate where readers might disagree or get confused. You learn to signal more clearly what you’re doing and why. You get better at distinguishing essential content from nice-to-have material. You learn when to show your reasoning explicitly and when to streamline.

These skills transfer. The next paper you write will likely generate fewer conflicts because you’ve internalized the lessons from navigating these disagreements.

Moreover, learning to respond to conflicting peer review comments professionally and strategically is a career-long skill. As you progress in academia, you’ll encounter contradictory feedback on grant proposals, promotion cases, book manuscripts, and more. The patience and analytical thinking you develop handling contradictory manuscript reviews serve you well in all these contexts.

When to Reconsider Your Target Journal

Occasionally, severely conflicting reviews might signal a mismatch between your paper and the journal. If reviewers fundamentally disagree about whether your approach is appropriate, whether your contribution is significant, or whether your paper fits the journal’s scope, it might indicate you’ve targeted the wrong venue.

This doesn’t mean your paper is bad. It means you might be trying to publish a paper that speaks to Audience A in a journal primarily read by Audience B. The reviewers aren’t necessarily wrong—they’re telling you what that journal’s readers expect, and your paper delivers something different.

If the required changes to satisfy conflicting reviewers would fundamentally alter your paper’s nature or contribution, it’s worth carefully evaluating whether revise and resubmit is worth your time, or whether a different journal might be a better fit where your work would be more unanimously appreciated.

Frequently Asked Questions

How common is it to receive conflicting reviewer comments?

Extremely common. Research on peer review patterns shows that substantively conflicting comments appear in 30-40% of manuscripts receiving multiple reviews. If you’ve received contradictory feedback, you’re experiencing one of the most normal aspects of the peer review process—not a sign that your manuscript is fatally flawed.

What should I do when one reviewer says to expand and another says to cut?

Don’t split the difference mechanically. Instead, identify what specific content each reviewer found problematic. Often, one reviewer correctly identifies genuinely underexplained sections while another spots truly redundant material. Address both underlying issues: expand where clarity is needed, cut where redundancy exists. The net result might be a similar length but with much better balance.

Should I always follow the majority when reviewers disagree?

No. Just because two reviewers agree and one disagrees doesn’t automatically mean the minority opinion is wrong. That single reviewer might be catching something important that the others missed. Evaluate each comment on its merits rather than counting votes. Sometimes the lone dissenter provides the most valuable insight.

When should I contact the editor about conflicting reviews?

Contact the editor when: (1) reviewers request mutually exclusive changes requiring months of additional work, and you need to know which direction the journal prefers; (2) one reviewer’s suggestions seem outside reasonable bounds, and you want confirmation you’re justified in declining; (3) the conflict suggests a fundamental misunderstanding that might require editorial intervention. Handle most conflicts yourself in your response letter—only escalate truly irreconcilable issues.

How do I respond when reviewers interpret my results differently?

This usually signals that your discussion doesn’t guide readers clearly enough through your interpretation. In your response letter, acknowledge both interpretations, explain your reasoning for your interpretation with specific evidence, and revise your discussion to make your interpretation more explicit. Add signposting language that helps readers understand how you think the results should be understood.

Can conflicting reviews help improve my manuscript?

Yes. Contradictory feedback often reveals genuine ambiguities in your manuscript that need addressing. When reviewers disagree about length, both might be right about different sections. When they prioritize different contributions, your framing might lack clarity about relative importance. Use conflicts as diagnostic information pointing you toward areas needing improvement.

What if I fundamentally disagree with both conflicting reviewers?

Rare, but possible. If both reviewers are suggesting changes that would compromise your research integrity or fundamentally alter your work in ways you can’t support, you have two options: (1) Write a respectful response letter explaining why you’re maintaining your approach with evidence-based justification; or (2) Consider whether this journal is the right fit for your work. Sometimes conflicts signal manuscript-journal mismatch rather than manuscript problems.

How long should my response letter be when addressing conflicts?

Longer than usual. Conflicting reviews require more explanation because you need to show your reasoning for navigating the conflicts. A typical response letter might be 3-5 pages; one addressing significant conflicts might be 6-10 pages. The extra length is justified when you’re documenting thoughtful decision-making about contradictory suggestions.

Will the editor tell reviewers which one was right?

Usually no. The editor expects you to make a compelling case in your response letter for any choices you’ve made. Don’t assume the editor will arbitrate—your response letter needs to be persuasive enough that reviewers understand your reasoning even if you didn’t follow their specific suggestion.

What does it mean when reviewers from the same field still contradict each other?

It often means you’re working on genuinely interesting, boundary-pushing research where the field hasn’t reached consensus. When expert reviewers disagree about interpretation, methods, or framing, it usually indicates you’re touching on unresolved questions or bridging areas where different subfields have different standards. This is actually a sign of innovative work, not problematic research.

The Bottom Line

Contradictory reviewer comments are frustrating, but they’re also normal, manageable, and often informative. They don’t mean your paper is fatally flawed or that you’ve done something wrong.

Your job isn’t to make every reviewer completely happy—that’s often impossible when they want opposite things. Your job is to carefully consider each concern, address the legitimate underlying issues, make transparent and well-reasoned decisions about conflicts, and document everything clearly in your response letter.

Remember that the editor makes the final decision. Your response letter is your opportunity to show that you’ve engaged seriously and thoughtfully with the feedback, that you’ve used the review process to improve your manuscript, and that you can navigate professional disagreements with maturity and good judgment.

Most importantly, stay focused on making your paper better. Use the conflicts as diagnostic information about where your manuscript needs clarification, where your framing might be ambiguous, and where different readers might struggle. The goal isn’t to satisfy reviewers for its own sake—it’s to produce a stronger, clearer paper that better serves your future readers.

And next time you’re asked to review a paper and find yourself fundamentally disagreeing with another reviewer? You’ll have more empathy for the poor author trying to navigate your conflicting advice—and you might even make your feedback more actionable because you understand how challenging conflicts can be to resolve.

About The Author

This guide was written by Dr. James Richardson, a research engineer who has experienced the frustration of conflicting reviewer feedback from both sides of the peer review process—as an author trying to satisfy impossible-to-reconcile suggestions and as a reviewer who has inadvertently contradicted colleagues’ recommendations. The strategies outlined here reflect what actually works for navigating these conflicts professionally and turning contradictory feedback into manuscript improvements, based on analyzing hundreds of successful revision responses across multiple disciplines.