You’re staring at a reviewer comment that’s just… wrong. Maybe they’ve misunderstood your methodology. Perhaps they’re suggesting an analysis that doesn’t make sense for your data. Or they want you to cite their own outdated work that your research actually contradicts. Your instinct might be to write “we respectfully disagree,” but that phrase often falls flat with reviewers. What you need are professional alternatives to “we respectfully disagree” that acknowledge their perspective while presenting your evidence convincingly.
The problem with “we respectfully disagree” isn’t just that it’s overused—it’s that it doesn’t actually advance your argument. It’s a verbal placeholder that sounds polite but offers no substance. Reviewers have heard it countless times, and it can come across as dismissive or even defensive, especially when used repeatedly in a single response letter.
In this guide, you’ll discover 50 more effective phrases that help you:
- Acknowledge the reviewer’s point without conceding your position
- Present your evidence in a way that strengthens your case
- Maintain a professional, collegial tone throughout
- Increase your chances of manuscript acceptance
Let’s explore these alternatives and learn when to use each one for maximum impact.
Quick Answer: Top 10 Alternatives to “We Respectfully Disagree”
Can’t read the full guide right now? Here are the 10 most effective alternatives to “we respectfully disagree” in reviewer response letters:
For acknowledging while maintaining your position:
- “We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful suggestion to [X]. After careful consideration, we believe [your approach] is more appropriate because…”
- Use when: Standard disagreements where their suggestion has merit but doesn’t fit
- “We thank the reviewer for raising this important point. While we understand the rationale for [their suggestion], we respectfully maintain our current approach because…”
- Use when: Their concern is valid, but their solution isn’t right
- “We have carefully considered the reviewer’s suggestion regarding [X]. While this approach has merit in some contexts, we believe it is not optimal for our study because…”
- Use when: Their suggestion isn’t wrong, just not right for your work
For methodological disagreements:
- “We respectfully maintain our use of [Method Y] rather than the reviewer’s suggested [Method X]. This choice is supported by [evidence].”
- Use when: Both methods are valid; yours is more appropriate
- “While [Method X] suggested by the reviewer is a valid approach, we selected [Method Y] specifically because…”
- Use when: You want to validate their knowledge while explaining your choice
For scope issues:
- “We agree that [suggested analysis] would be valuable. However, this falls outside the scope of the current study, which focuses specifically on [X]. We have added this as a direction for future research.”
- Use when: Their suggestion is good but beyond your study’s boundaries
For clarifying misunderstandings:
- “We apologize if this was not sufficiently clear in our original manuscript. We did in fact [what you actually did]. We have now made this more explicit to ensure future readers do not have similar concerns.”
- Use when: They thought you didn’t do something that you actually did
- “We thank the reviewer for this comment, which prompted us to clarify an important point. [Their concern] was addressed in our study through [method], as described in [location]. We have now made this more prominent.”
- Use when: Information is there but easy to miss
For inappropriate requests:
- “We appreciate the suggestion to [X]. However, implementing this change would [specific negative consequence]. For these reasons, we have maintained our original approach while adding clarification about [rationale].”
- Use when: Their suggestion would introduce scientific problems
- “We have carefully considered this suggestion and consulted with [experts/literature]. We must respectfully maintain our current approach because [fundamental reason]. To address the reviewer’s underlying concern, we have instead [alternative action].”
- Use when: You need to be very firm while staying professional
Read on for 40+ more alternatives, complete response letter examples, and strategic guidance on when to use each phrase.
Why ‘We Respectfully Disagree’ Sounds Defensive (And What to Say Instead)
The phrase “we respectfully disagree” has become so overused in academic writing that it’s lost much of its effectiveness. While it’s not inherently wrong, it signals disagreement without building a persuasive case for your position.
Think about it from the reviewer’s perspective. They’ve spent hours reviewing your manuscript, making suggestions they believe will improve it. When they see “we respectfully disagree” followed by minimal explanation, it can read as dismissive—as if you’re saying “we disagree because we say so.”
More importantly, the editor reading your response needs to understand not just that you disagree, but why your approach is scientifically sound. The editor is trying to make a judgment call between two experts (you and the reviewer) who have different opinions. This is particularly critical during major revision decisions where your response quality can determine whether you advance toward acceptance or receive another round of revisions. Give them the evidence and reasoning they need to side with you.
The Psychology of Professional Disagreement
Before we dive into specific phrases, understanding the psychology behind effective disagreement will help you choose the right approach for each situation.
The Three Pillars of Persuasive Disagreement
Pillar 1: Acknowledgment
Always begin by showing you’ve genuinely considered the reviewer’s perspective. This isn’t just politeness—it’s psychology. When people feel heard, they’re dramatically more receptive to alternative viewpoints. Starting with acknowledgment signals that you’re engaging in good-faith dialogue, not simply defending territory.
Pillar 2: Evidence
Your disagreement must rest on objective evidence: citations to literature, methodological standards, data from your study, or logical reasoning. “We believe” or “we think” isn’t persuasive. “Three recent studies in Nature and Cell used this approach [citations]” is persuasive. This evidence-based approach is fundamental to effective responses to peer review comments across all scenarios, not just disagreements.
Pillar 3: Respect
Maintain professional language even when you’re certain the reviewer is wrong. Remember that reviewers volunteer their time, the editor values their expertise, and the peer review process depends on mutual professional respect. You can be firm without being aggressive.
The Disagreement Spectrum: Matching Tone to Situation
Not all disagreements are created equal. Your language should vary based on the situation:
Soft Disagreement (Minor Issues)
- The reviewer suggests a phrasing change that you don’t think improves clarity
- They recommend citing their own relevant work
- They question a decision that’s defensible either way
Appropriate tone: Gentle explanation with compromise
Moderate Disagreement (Methodological Differences)
- The reviewer prefers Method A; you used Method B
- They suggest different statistical approaches
- They want a different organizational structure
Appropriate tone: Evidence-based justification with respect for their expertise
Strong Disagreement (Fundamental Errors)
- The reviewer misunderstood your methods or data
- They’re suggesting something scientifically inappropriate
- Their comment reveals they didn’t read carefully
Appropriate tone: Firm correction with diplomatic framing
Very Strong Disagreement (Serious Problems)
- The reviewer is asking about unethical practices
- Their comments seem biased or in bad faith
- They’re demanding citation of their competing work inappropriately
Appropriate tone: Contact editor separately; don’t address in response letter. Your rebuttal letter to reviewers should maintain professionalism, while serious ethical concerns go directly to the editor.
50+ Alternatives to ‘We Respectfully Disagree’ (By Situation)
Now let’s get practical. Here are proven phrases organized by situation, with guidance on when and how to use each.
Category 1: Acknowledging Before Disagreeing
These phrases show you’ve genuinely considered the suggestion before explaining why you’re not implementing it.
“We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful suggestion to [X]. After careful consideration, we believe [your approach] is more appropriate for our study because…”
When to use: Standard disagreements where the reviewer’s suggestion has merit but doesn’t fit your specific context.
Why it works: “Thoughtful” acknowledges their effort; “careful consideration” shows you didn’t dismiss it quickly.
“We thank the reviewer for raising this important point. While we understand the rationale for [their suggestion], we respectfully maintain our current approach because…”
When to use: When the reviewer’s underlying concern is valid, but their proposed solution isn’t right.
Why it works: “Important point” validates their contribution even as you disagree with their solution.
“The reviewer makes a valuable observation about [issue]. However, in the context of our specific research question, we believe [your approach] better serves our analytical goals for the following reasons…”
When to use: When you agree that the issue matters but disagree about how to address it.
Why it works: Separates the valid underlying concern from the debatable solution.
“We have carefully considered the reviewer’s suggestion regarding [X]. While this approach has merit in some contexts, we believe it is not optimal for our study because…”
When to use: When the reviewer suggests something that’s not wrong per se, just not right for your work.
Why it works: “Has merit in some contexts” shows you understand its validity elsewhere while explaining why it doesn’t apply here.
“We appreciate the reviewer bringing our attention to [X]. After discussing this point with our co-authors and reviewing the relevant literature, we have decided to maintain our original approach because…”
When to use: When you want to signal you took the comment very seriously (discussed with co-authors, researched literature).
Why it works: Demonstrates thorough deliberation before disagreeing.
Category 2: Explaining Methodological Disagreements
These phrases work when reviewers question your methodological choices.
“We respectfully maintain our use of [Method Y] rather than the reviewer’s suggested [Method X]. This choice is supported by [evidence].”
When to use: Direct methodological disagreements where both methods are valid, but yours is more appropriate.
Why it works: “Maintain” suggests confidence without arrogance; it immediately promises evidence.
“While [Method X] suggested by the reviewer is a valid approach, we selected [Method Y] specifically because…”
When to use: When you want to validate their knowledge while explaining your different choice.
Why it works: Acknowledges their expertise (“valid approach”) before explaining your reasoning.
“The reviewer suggests using [approach], which is appropriate for [certain situations]. However, given our specific research design/data structure/sample characteristics, [your approach] is more suitable because…”
When to use: When the reviewer’s suggestion works in general but not for your specific circumstances.
Why it works: Shows you understand when their method works, demonstrating you didn’t dismiss it carelessly.
“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to employ [statistical test]. However, our data do not meet the necessary assumptions for this test because [specific reasons]. Instead, we have used [alternative], which is robust to [specific issues] and is recommended by [citations to statistical literature].”
When to use: Statistical disagreements where assumptions matter.
Why it works: Demonstrates technical competence and relies on authoritative sources rather than just your opinion.
“The reviewer recommends [approach] as the ‘gold standard.’ While this approach is indeed widely used, recent methodological advances have shown that [your approach] provides [specific advantages]. We have added citations to [key papers] that establish this approach as current best practice.”
When to use: When you’re using newer methods that the reviewer may not be familiar with.
Why it works: Respectfully educates without condescending; appeals to the authority of recent literature.
Category 3: Addressing Scope and Feasibility Issues
Use these when reviewers request additional work that’s beyond your study’s scope or resources.
“We agree that [suggested analysis/experiment] would be valuable. However, this falls outside the scope of the current study, which focuses specifically on [X]. We have added this as a direction for future research in our Discussion (page X, lines Y-Z).”
When to use: When the suggestion is good but would expand your study beyond its defined boundaries. This scenario often requires careful evaluation of whether revise and resubmit is worth the investment when scope expansion demands are substantial.
Why it works: Validates their idea while explaining clear boundaries; shows you’ve addressed it by discussing future directions.
“While we appreciate the suggestion to include [additional data/population], acquiring this would require [time/resources/access] that extend beyond the current project timeline. We have, however, [what you CAN do as a compromise].”
When to use: When practical constraints prevent you from doing what they ask.
Why it works: Provides concrete reasons without sounding like you’re making excuses; offers a compromise.
“The reviewer suggests expanding our analysis to include [X, Y, and Z]. While comprehensive, this would transform our focused study into a much broader project. We believe our current scope allows for [advantages of focused approach]. We have clarified our study’s specific aims in [location] to make this focus explicit.”
When to use: When the reviewer wants to expand your narrow study into something much bigger.
Why it works: Frames your focused approach as a deliberate strength rather than a limitation.
“We recognize the value of [suggested additional work]. However, given that [realistic constraint], we are unable to complete this within a reasonable revision timeline. As an alternative, we have [compromise solution].”
When to use: When time constraints are the primary issue.
Why it works: Acknowledges value while being realistic about timelines; offers an alternative.
“The reviewer’s suggestion to [conduct additional experiments] would indeed strengthen the manuscript. However, this would require [substantial new resources/ethical approvals/participant recruitment] that constitute a follow-up study rather than a manuscript revision. We have expanded our limitations section (page X) to acknowledge this and propose it as critical future work.”
When to use: When what they’re asking for is actually a whole new study.
Why it works: Distinguishes between “revision” and “new study” while showing you’ve thought about next steps.
Category 4: Clarifying Misunderstandings
Use these when the reviewer missed or misunderstood something in your manuscript.
“We apologize if this was not sufficiently clear in our original manuscript. We did in fact [what you actually did]. We have now made this more explicit in [section, page, lines] to ensure future readers do not have similar concerns.”
When to use: When the reviewer thought you didn’t do something that you actually did.
Why it works: Takes responsibility for clarity without blaming the reviewer; fixes the problem for future readers.
“We thank the reviewer for this comment, which prompted us to clarify an important point. [Their concern] was addressed in our study through [method/analysis], as described in [original location]. However, we recognize this was not sufficiently prominent given its importance. We have now [made it more visible/added emphasis/created a new subsection].”
When to use: When information is there but easy to miss.
Why it works: Acknowledges their valid confusion while showing the work was done; improves manuscript clarity.
“The reviewer expresses concern about [issue]. We want to clarify that [correct understanding of what you did]. This may not have been apparent because [reason]. We have revised [location] to make this relationship/method/finding more explicit.”
When to use: When your methods or results were misinterpreted.
Why it works: Gently corrects without suggesting the reviewer didn’t read carefully.
“We appreciate the reviewer highlighting this point. To clarify: [clear statement of what you actually did/found]. We have added explicit language to [section] stating this directly, as the reviewer’s comment suggests our original wording may have been ambiguous.”
When to use: When ambiguous writing leads to misunderstanding.
Why it works: Treats misunderstanding as a writing problem (your responsibility) rather than a reading problem (their fault).
Category 5: Defending Against Inappropriate Requests
These phrases handle requests that would actually harm your manuscript or are scientifically inappropriate.
“We appreciate the suggestion to [X]. However, implementing this change would [specific negative consequence: misrepresent our findings/violate statistical assumptions/conflict with established methodology]. For these reasons, we have maintained our original approach while adding clarification about [rationale].”
When to use: When their suggestion would introduce scientific problems.
Why it works: Makes clear there are methodological/ethical reasons, not just preference.
“The reviewer suggests framing our results as supporting [Theory X]. However, our data show [what they actually show], which is more consistent with [accurate interpretation]. While we acknowledge [Theory X] is prominent in the literature, presenting our findings this way would overstate what our data support.”
When to use: When the reviewer wants you to overclaim or misframe your results.
Why it works: Shows commitment to accurate representation of findings.
“We understand the reviewer’s preference for [approach]. However, this would require us to [problematic action: remove data points without justification/use post-hoc analyses without correction/make claims beyond our data]. We believe maintaining scientific rigor requires us to [your approach].”
When to use: When their suggestion involves questionable practices.
Why it works: Appeals to scientific standards that both you and the editor should prioritize.
Category 6: Handling Citation Requests
Reviewers sometimes push their own work or outdated citations. Tread carefully here.
“We thank the reviewer for suggesting we cite [papers]. We have reviewed these references and added [the directly relevant ones: citations X and Y]. While [other suggested papers] are notable contributions to [broader field], they address [different aspect] rather than our specific focus on [your topic], so we have not included them.”
When to use: When some suggested citations are relevant, but others aren’t.
Why it works: Shows you seriously considered all suggestions; explains reasoning for selective inclusion.
“We appreciate the reviewer directing us to [their suggested literature]. After reviewing these papers, we have incorporated [specific paper] as it directly relates to [specific aspect of your work]. However, we note that our work primarily builds on [different theoretical framework/methodology], for which [your current citations] are the most directly applicable.”
When to use: When they want you to cite work from a different theoretical tradition.
Why it works: Acknowledges their suggestion while explaining your theoretical positioning.
“The reviewer suggests citing [paper from 19XX]. While this was an important early contribution, our work builds primarily on more recent advances in the field, particularly [recent citations]. We believe the current reference list appropriately represents the state of knowledge relevant to our specific research questions.”
When to use: When they want outdated citations.
Why it works: Respects historical contributions while justifying focus on current literature.
Category 7: Addressing Contradictory Reviewer Comments
When reviewers disagree with each other, you need special phrases.
“We note that Reviewer 1 suggested [X] while Reviewer 2 recommended [Y]. After careful consideration of both perspectives, we have decided to [your choice] because [evidence-based reasoning]. We believe this addresses the underlying concern both reviewers identified regarding [common issue].”
When to use: When you can identify what both reviewers were really worried about. The ability to synthesize contradictory feedback demonstrates sophisticated thinking that editors value when handling conflicting reviewer comments.
Why it works: Shows sophisticated thinking; addresses both reviewers’ concerns even while choosing one approach.
“Reviewers 1 and 2 offered different perspectives on [issue], which we have carefully considered. We have attempted to balance these viewpoints by [your approach]. Specifically: [how you addressed each reviewer’s underlying concern].”
When to use: When you can partially address both concerns.
Why it works: Demonstrates you’re trying to satisfy both, not just picking sides.
For more comprehensive strategies on managing contradictory feedback, understanding how to handle conflicting reviewer comments provides detailed frameworks for these challenging situations.
Category 8: Maintaining Firmness While Being Diplomatic
Sometimes you need to be very firm while staying professional.
“We have carefully considered this suggestion and consulted with [statistical experts/methodological literature/ethics committee]. We must respectfully maintain our current approach because [fundamental reason]. To address the reviewer’s underlying concern about [X], we have instead [alternative action].”
When to use: When you need to be firm but still show you care about their concern.
Why it works: “Must” signals non-negotiability; offering an alternative shows good faith.
“While we appreciate all feedback, we believe this particular suggestion would compromise the scientific integrity of our work because [specific reason]. We have added explicit discussion of our methodological choice and its rationale to [section] with supporting citations.”
When to use: When scientific integrity is at stake.
Why it works: Appeals to shared values (scientific integrity) that editors prioritize.
Real-World Examples: Putting Phrases Into Context
Theory is helpful, but seeing these phrases in complete responses shows you exactly how to use them. Here are five detailed examples.
Example 1: Methodological Disagreement (Statistical Approach)
Reviewer Comment: “The authors should use parametric tests (t-tests and ANOVA) instead of the non-parametric tests they employed. Parametric tests are more powerful and are standard in this field.”
Your Response: “We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to use parametric tests. However, we respectfully maintain our use of non-parametric methods for the following reasons:
First, formal testing revealed that our data significantly violates the normality assumptions required for parametric tests. Shapiro-Wilk tests indicated non-normal distributions for all outcome variables (p < 0.001; see new Supplementary Table S2).
Second, our sample sizes are relatively modest (n=8-12 per group), a range where non-parametric tests are particularly robust and often outperform parametric approaches with non-normal data [citations to statistical literature].
Third, non-parametric methods make fewer assumptions about data distribution and are therefore more conservative—they are less likely to produce false positives, which we believe is appropriate given the exploratory nature of some of our analyses.
We have added explicit discussion of these considerations to our Statistical Analysis section (Methods, page 9, lines 198-215) along with the new Supplementary Table S2 documenting normality testing results. We believe this addresses the reviewer’s concern about methodological rigor while maintaining the appropriate statistical approach for our specific data characteristics.”
Why this works:
- Acknowledges the suggestion positively
- Provides three distinct evidence-based reasons
- Cites authoritative statistical literature
- Adds documentation to the manuscript
- Maintains a respectful but firm tone
Example 2: Scope Expansion Request
Reviewer Comment: “The authors should expand their study to include data from at least three additional countries to ensure generalizability of their findings.”
Your Response: “We agree that cross-cultural validation would strengthen confidence in our findings. However, acquiring data from three additional countries would require 18-24 months for IRB approvals, data collection, and analysis—constituting a follow-up study rather than a manuscript revision.
To address the reviewer’s important concern about generalizability within our current scope, we have:
- Expanded our Discussion of cross-cultural considerations, citing recent work showing that [relevant finding] appears consistent across diverse populations [citations] (Discussion, page 22, lines 467-485).
- Added explicit acknowledgment of this limitation, noting that our findings should be interpreted within the context of [your population] and that cross-cultural replication is an important direction for future research (Discussion, page 24, lines 518-527).
- Provided additional demographic details in our Methods (page 8, Table 1) to help readers assess the applicability of our findings to their own contexts.
We believe our current single-country focus allows for the methodological depth and control necessary for this initial investigation, while acknowledging that broader geographic validation is a critical next step.”
Why this works:
- Validates their concern genuinely
- Explains practical constraints clearly
- Offers three concrete compromises
- Frames focused scope as a strength
- Commits to addressing the limitations in the discussion
Example 3: Clarifying a Misunderstanding
Reviewer Comment: “The authors did not control for socioeconomic status, which could be a major confounding variable in their analysis.”
Your Response: “We thank the reviewer for emphasizing the importance of controlling for socioeconomic status (SES). We did in fact control for SES using a three-factor composite measure (parental education, household income, neighborhood SES), as described in our original Methods section (page 10, lines 215-223) and shown in our regression models (Table 3, Model 2).
However, we recognize that the reviewer’s comment indicates this may not have been sufficiently prominent given its importance. We have now:
- Added ‘socioeconomic status’ explicitly to the title of the relevant Methods subsection (Section 2.5, page 10), previously titled only ‘Demographic Variables.’
- Created a new Supplementary Table S3 showing the individual components of our SES composite measure and their intercorrelations.
- Added a sentence to our Results emphasizing that findings remained significant after SES adjustment (page 16, lines 342-345).
- Included SES more prominently in Figure 3, which displays adjusted models.
We appreciate the reviewer highlighting this crucial aspect of our analysis, as ensuring this control is clearly communicated strengthens the manuscript considerably.”
Why this works:
- Takes responsibility for clarity without blaming the reviewer
- Provides exact locations where it was already addressed
- Makes substantial improvements to visibility
- Turns criticism into an opportunity to strengthen the paper
- Thanks, reviewer, genuinely
Example 4: Defending Against Inappropriate Request
Reviewer Comment: “The authors should remove the three outliers visible in Figure 2, as these data points are skewing the results.”
Your Response: “We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to the data points in Figure 2. However, we respectfully maintain the inclusion of all data points for the following reasons:
First, these points are not statistical outliers by standard criteria. They fall within 3 standard deviations of the mean and score below 3.5 on standardized residual analysis, which are the conventional thresholds for outlier identification [citations to statistical texts].
Second, excluding data points simply because they don’t fit the expected pattern would introduce bias and potentially misrepresent the true variability in our population. These values represent legitimate measurements from participants who met all inclusion criteria.
Third, we conducted sensitivity analyses both with and without these data points. While excluding them strengthens the effect size marginally (β = 0.42 vs. 0.38), the core relationship remains statistically significant in both analyses (p < 0.01 in both cases), and our conclusions do not change.
We have added these sensitivity analyses to our Results section (page 17, lines 365-372) and to a new Supplementary Table S4, allowing readers to evaluate the robustness of our findings. We believe this approach is more transparent than selective data exclusion and better serves the scientific goal of accurately representing population characteristics.”
Why this works:
- Firmly but politely refuses an inappropriate request
- Provides methodological justification with citations
- Appeals to scientific principles (avoiding bias, transparency)
- Offers compromise (sensitivity analysis)
- Demonstrates results are robust anyway
Example 5: Handling Citation Request
Reviewer Comment: “The authors should cite the work of Smith et al. (2015, 2017, 2019) and Jones et al. (2018, 2020), who have published extensively on this topic.”
Your Response: “We thank the reviewer for directing our attention to this body of work. We have reviewed all five suggested papers and have added Smith et al. (2017) and Jones et al. (2020) to our Introduction (page 4, line 87) and Discussion (page 23, line 492), as these papers directly address [specific aspect relevant to your work].
Regarding the other suggested papers: Smith et al. (2015) focus primarily on [different population/method] rather than our specific focus on [your focus], and Smith et al. (2019) address [different research question]. Jones et al. (2018) employ a [different theoretical framework] while our work builds on [your framework]. While these are valuable contributions to the broader literature on [general topic], we believe our current reference list most accurately represents the specific methodological and theoretical foundations most directly relevant to our study.
We have also added two additional recent papers [your citations] that emerged from our review of the suggested literature and that specifically address [aspect relevant to your work]. We believe this expanded reference list now provides comprehensive coverage of the most directly applicable prior work.”
Why this works:
- Shows you seriously reviewed all suggestions
- Explains specific reasons for selective inclusion
- Demonstrates you didn’t just dismiss their suggestions
- Actually improved your literature review in the process
- Maintains focus on relevance to your specific work
When to Contact the Editor Instead
Most disagreements you’ll handle directly in your response letter using the strategies above. But occasionally, issues arise that require editorial intervention.
Contact the editor separately (not in your response letter) when:
A reviewer is demanding citation of their own work inappropriately (e.g., they’re clearly the author of suggested papers and those papers aren’t actually relevant).
The reviewer’s comments suggest possible conflict of interest or bias (e.g., they’re pushing a competing methodology you’ve specifically chosen against for good reasons).
The reviewer is asking for something unethical (removing inconvenient data, overstating conclusions, conducting analyses that violate standards).
Multiple reviewers have such contradictory demands that you genuinely cannot determine the journal’s priorities and need editorial guidance.
The tone of the review is abusive or unprofessional beyond normal critical feedback.
How to contact the editor:
Keep it brief and factual. Example:
“Dear Dr. [Editor],
Thank you for arranging a review of our manuscript [ID]. While preparing our response to reviewer comments, we have a question about how to proceed with one specific issue.
Reviewer 2 has suggested we cite five of their papers (we’ve identified them as the author based on the suggested citations). We’ve reviewed these papers and found two to be directly relevant, which we’ve added. However, three addresses [different topics/populations/methods] rather than our specific focus.
We want to ensure we’re addressing this suggestion appropriately. Could you advise whether these additional citations should be included despite the indirect connection to our work?
Thank you for your guidance.
Best regards, [Your name].”
Common Mistakes When Disagreeing
Even with good phrases, certain approaches will backfire. Avoid these pitfalls.
Mistake 1: Being too brief
Don’t write: “We respectfully disagree. Our approach is standard in the field.”
This reads as dismissive. Provide detailed reasoning.
Mistake 2: Getting defensive or emotional
Don’t write: “The reviewer clearly didn’t read our manuscript carefully, as this point is already addressed on page 7.”
This alienates both the reviewer and editor. Instead: “We apologize if this wasn’t sufficiently clear. We did address this on page 7, but we’ve now made it more prominent…”
Mistake 3: Citing only your own work
When defending your approach, cite independent literature, not just your previous papers. Using only self-citations looks defensive.
Mistake 4: Making it personal
Don’t write: “The reviewer’s suggestion reflects outdated thinking about…”
Focus on methods and evidence, never on the person.
Mistake 5: Being too apologetic
Don’t write: “We apologize profusely for any confusion. We’re sorry if our writing was unclear. We regret that…”
One “we apologize if this wasn’t clear” is plenty. Excessive apologizing undermines your authority.
Mistake 6: Not offering any compromise
When you disagree completely, try to address the underlying concern in some other way. Pure “no” with no alternative is harder for editors to accept.
The Follow-Through: What Happens After You Disagree
Understanding what happens after you submit your response helps you craft more effective disagreements.
The Review Process for Revisions
Most journals send your revised manuscript and response letter back to the original reviewers. This means:
The reviewer will see your disagreement. Your professional tone matters because you’re maintaining a relationship.
The reviewer might change their mind. If your evidence is strong and your tone is respectful, reviewers often accept your reasoning.
The reviewer might dig in. If you didn’t provide sufficient justification, they might insist more strongly in the next round.
The editor decides. If the reviewer still objects, but your reasoning is sound, editors often side with authors on reasonable scientific disagreements.
Possible Outcomes
Best case: The reviewer and editor accept your reasoning. Your manuscript moves forward or is accepted.
Common case: The reviewer acknowledges your point and accepts your approach, possibly with minor additional clarifications.
Manageable case: The reviewer still disagrees, but the editor determines your approach is scientifically acceptable and overrides the reviewer.
Challenging case: You receive another round of revisions with continued disagreement, requiring further negotiation or editorial consultation. In these situations, understanding different journal decision statuses helps you interpret whether the editor is moving toward acceptance despite ongoing reviewer concerns or whether fundamental issues remain unresolved.
Worst case: The editor sides entirely with the reviewer, and you must choose between making changes you think are wrong or withdrawing the manuscript. When facing this decision, strategic consideration of what to do after manuscript rejection can help you plan your next steps.
Frequently Asked Questions About Disagreeing with Reviewers
What’s wrong with saying “we respectfully disagree” in a reviewer response?
“We respectfully disagree” isn’t inherently wrong, but it’s overused and offers no substance. It signals disagreement without building a persuasive case for your position. Reviewers have heard it countless times, and it can sound dismissive or defensive, especially when used repeatedly. More effective alternatives acknowledge the reviewer’s perspective while presenting evidence for your position.
How do you politely disagree with a peer reviewer?
Politely disagree by using a three-step structure: (1) Acknowledge their suggestion genuinely (“We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful suggestion…”), (2) Explain your reasoning with evidence (“However, we believe [your approach] is more appropriate because [specific reasons with citations]”), and (3) Show you’ve addressed their underlying concern in some way, even if you didn’t implement their specific suggestion.
Can I disagree with multiple reviewer comments?
Yes, you can disagree with multiple comments, but each disagreement must be well-justified with evidence. The key is demonstrating that you’ve carefully considered each suggestion and have legitimate scientific reasons for your approach. If you disagree with most comments, this may signal your manuscript isn’t a good fit for the journal.
What are the best alternatives to “we respectfully disagree”?
The best alternatives depend on the situation. For methodological disagreements: “We respectfully maintain our use of [Method Y] because [evidence].” For scope issues: “We agree this would be valuable, but it falls outside our study’s focus on [X].” For misunderstandings: “We apologize if this wasn’t clear—we did in fact [X]. We’ve now made this more explicit.” See our complete list of 50+ alternatives above.
Should I contact the editor if I disagree with a reviewer?
Only contact the editor separately (not in your response letter) for serious issues: inappropriate citation demands, clear conflicts of interest, unethical requests, or abusive reviewer tone. Handle most disagreements directly in your response letter. Editors expect authors to navigate routine disagreements professionally without editorial intervention.
How many reviewer comments can I disagree with before it’s too many?
There’s no fixed number, but if you disagree with more than 30-40% of comments, consider whether your manuscript is a good fit for this journal. Each disagreement weakens your position slightly, so save your disagreements for issues that truly matter. Address easy comments enthusiastically to build goodwill for the disagreements that are scientifically necessary.
What happens after I submit a response disagreeing with reviewers?
Most journals send your revised manuscript and response letter back to the original reviewers. They’ll see your disagreement and either: accept your reasoning (best case), acknowledge your point with minor additional requests (common case), or maintain their position, in which case the editor decides whose reasoning is more sound. Strong evidence and a professional tone increase the chances reviewers accept your position.
How do I disagree with a reviewer without sounding defensive?
Avoid defensive language by: (1) Starting with acknowledgment rather than immediate disagreement, (2) Using evidence-based reasoning rather than personal preference, (3) Maintaining professional language throughout, (4) Offering alternatives when possible, and (5) Taking responsibility for any lack of clarity rather than implying the reviewer didn’t read carefully.
Can I disagree if the reviewer is clearly wrong?
Yes, but be diplomatic. Use phrases like “We want to clarify…” or “We appreciate the reviewer highlighting this—it prompted us to make this point more explicit…” rather than suggesting they made an error. Even when you’re certain they’re wrong, frame it as a communication problem (your responsibility to be clearer) rather than a comprehension problem (their fault).
What if two reviewers give contradictory suggestions?
When reviewers contradict each other, explain your reasoning for choosing one approach: “We note that Reviewer 1 suggested [X] while Reviewer 2 recommended [Y]. After careful consideration, we have decided to [your choice] because [evidence]. We believe this addresses the underlying concern both reviewers identified regarding [common issue].” For comprehensive strategies, see our guide on handling conflicting reviewer comments.
Final Thoughts: Disagreement as Scientific Dialogue
Learning to disagree professionally with peer reviewers isn’t just about getting papers published—though it certainly helps with that. It’s about engaging in the scientific dialogue that moves knowledge forward.
Reviewers aren’t adversaries. They’re colleagues trying to ensure published science is rigorous and clearly communicated. When you disagree with them effectively, you’re not “winning” an argument. You’re participating in a collaborative process that ideally makes your work stronger and more defensible.
The phrases and strategies in this guide work because they respect that collaborative spirit. They acknowledge expertise, provide evidence, maintain professional relationships, and advance scientific discourse—all while allowing you to stand firm on scientifically sound decisions.
Master these approaches, and you’ll transform one of the most stressful parts of academic publishing into an opportunity to demonstrate your expertise, strengthen your manuscript, and build your reputation as a thoughtful, professional scholar. The skills you develop in professional disagreement extend beyond manuscript revision—they’re fundamental to navigating the entire academic publishing process, from initial submission through final acceptance.
About The Author
This guide was written by Dr. James Richardson, a research engineer who has experienced disagreement with reviewers from both perspectives—as an author defending methodological choices and as a reviewer whose suggestions have been (appropriately) declined by authors with strong justifications. The phrases and strategies presented here reflect what actually works for maintaining scientific integrity while navigating the peer review process professionally, based on analyzing hundreds of successful and unsuccessful responses across multiple disciplines.
Related Resources
Master every aspect of the peer review and manuscript revision process:
- How to Respond to Peer Review Comments – Comprehensive guide for all types of reviewer feedback, including when disagreement is and isn’t appropriate
- Rebuttal Letter to Reviewers: Complete Guide with Templates – Detailed templates for structuring your entire response, including sections where you disagree
- How to Handle Conflicting Reviewer Comments – Navigate contradictory feedback strategically when reviewers disagree with each other
- Revise and Resubmit: Is It Worth It? – Decide whether extensive revisions merit your time when disagreements persist across revision rounds
- Types of Journal Decisions Explained – Understand what different outcomes mean for your manuscript when editors weigh your disagreements
- What to Do After Manuscript Rejection – Strategic next steps when disagreement doesn’t lead to acceptance at your target journal
- How Journal Editors Make Decisions – Inside perspective on how editors evaluate disagreements between authors and reviewers
- Journal Decision Statuses Explained – Decode manuscript status updates as your revision with disagreements moves through editorial review
