How to Respond to Conflicting Reviewer Comments: Where to Use AI and Where Human Oversight Matters
Remember that moment of receiving an email notification from a journal you have submitted to? Anticipating what peer reviewers would have thought of your manuscript can be nerve-racking indeed! As you gradually read the journal editor’s response and go through the peer reviewer comments, there’s even a possibility of encountering conflicting opinions—such as one reviewer requesting additional analysis while another suggesting shortening the manuscript. This can leave you feeling lost about which recommendation to follow. However, conflicting comments do not necessarily signify a failure in the review process. Rather, they indicate how the same manuscript can be subjected to different reviewer interpretations.
These days, most people prefer asking Artificial Intelligence (AI) to helps them deal with conflicts, be it pertaining to their personal or professional life! Should authors do the same? Can AI help handle peer review responses even when the comments are conflicting?
Role of AI in Understanding Reviewer Comments
How to Respond to Conflicting Reviewer Comments
- Identify the Core of Conflicting Opinions
- Recognize Actionable Feedback
- Write Politely and Be Specific
Frequently Asked Questions on Responding to Peer Reviewers
Role of AI in Understanding Reviewer Comments
Picture this. After receiving the journal editor’s feedback, you sit with the comments and suggestions not sure how to proceed further because the information presented to you feels overwhelming. Moreover, if English is not your first language, decoding some of the complex comments can be challenging. Here’s how AI can help:
- Summarizing long texts: Complex and lengthy peer reviewers’ comments make it difficult to separate useful feedback from clutter. AI tools are excellent for summarizing content. So use them to extract important details from the comments before formulating responses so that you will know which key aspects must be revised in the current manuscript.
- Translating to native language: Non-native speakers sometimes struggle to interpret the comments written in English. AI translation tools can help bridge this gap by translating the comments to the author’s native language.
- Categorizing comments: Another useful feature of AI tools is their ability to identify similar patterns and club related ideas to create relevant categories. For example, suggestions can be related to improving sentence structures, enhancing logical flow, adding missing information, validating results through stronger approaches, etc., all distributed across each reviewer’s feedback. AI tools can recognize patterns that match and help categorize feedback into relevant groups.
- Refining arguments: Finally, after drafting the responses, you can utilize AI tools to refine and polish the language. Of course, AI tools cannot evaluate the accuracy of responses in the context of domain-specific aspects, which is where Response Letter Checks by professionals come in handy.
How to Respond to Conflicting Reviewer Comments
The key to responding to conflicting reviewer comments is to make logical decisions based on the research purpose and evidence, the scope of the journal, and the editor’s guidelines rather than mechanically accepting all opinions or unconditionally rejecting one set of feedback. The following three steps can help early-career researchers and PhD students revise their manuscripts effectively and write clear responses while responding to conflicting peer review comments.
1. Identify the Core of Conflicting Opinions
When reviewer opinions appear to differ, you must first identify the problem each opinion aims to solve rather than focusing on the sentences themselves. If one reviewer requests additional experiments while another states that the current results are sufficient, the difference between the two opinions may not be a simple matter of approval or disapproval; it’s rather a difference in judgment regarding the scope of the research question and the level of evidence.
Start by organizing all comments into a table and categorizing each opinion by aspects such as research validity, analysis methods, result interpretation, paper structure, sentence expression, and format. This helps differentiate between opinions that actually conflict head-on and those that merely point out differences. AI tools may be used, if required, to execute this task efficiently.
a) Check the editor’s decision first
When reviewers’ opinions conflict, the first thing to examine is the editor’s decision. The editor plays the role of synthesizing various reviews to suggest a direction for manuscript revision. If the editor mandated a specific experiment or analysis, it takes high priority. Conversely, if they referred to it as an optional addition, you, as the author, can opt to respond differently based on academic grounds. If the decision is ambiguous, you should clearly state the judgment criteria in the response and, if necessary, politely ask the editor for clarification.
b) Determine the impact on the research question and core argument
Next, check whether the modifications are necessary to answer the research question. If the analysis supporting the core conclusions of the study is insufficient, additional analysis should be prioritized. However, if the requested modifications significantly exceed the scope of the research or are akin to a new research project, it is not mandatory to implement all of them. In such cases, instead of simply stating that there is a lack of time, you must specifically explain how the modification deviates from the current research objectives and to what extent the existing data can answer the issue.
c) Prioritize fixing the commonly identified issues
If multiple reviewers felt confused about the same part, even if they’ve worded the feedback differently, that point must be improved.
For example, if one reviewer highlights that the research purpose is unclear while another criticizes the conclusion as excessive, both opinions may indicate a common problem: a weak connection between the core argument and the evidence. In this case, clarifying the research question in the Introduction and adjusting the scope of the argument in the Results and Discussion can address both comments simultaneously.
2. Recognize Actionable Feedback
Responding to reviewer comments is not a simple choice between ‘acceptance’ and ‘rejection.’ Various approaches are possible, including
- full acceptance,
- partial acceptance,
- alternative revisions, or
- non-acceptance supported by evidence.
First, actively accept the suggestions that ask to enhance the accuracy and reproducibility of the research, correct erroneous analyses or unclear explanations, and revise the way of reporting findings to enable better understanding of the results. Next, choose the direction most appropriate for the core research objectives and the journal’s readers.
For example, let’s say Reviewer 1 requests to expand the explanation of results. Reviewer 2, on the other hand, requests to shorten the main text. One approach to deal with this is to reinforce the interpretation of key results within the main text and moving incidental analyses or repetitive explanations to supplementary materials. Instead of choosing one opinion and ignoring the other, this involves finding a third approach to address the concerns of both reviewers.
Similarly, if conducting additional experiments is not realistically feasible, alternatives such as reanalyzing existing data, specifying the limitations of the study in the Discussion, or softening the wording of the conclusions can also be considered. Remember: incorporating contradictory demands simultaneously can weaken the logic of the paper. Therefore, create a table that records the ‘core of the issue,’ ‘acceptance,’ ‘basis for judgment,’ ‘actual revisions,’ and ‘manuscript location’ for each comment to ease decision-making. This helps prevent omissions during the revision process and you can even share judgment criteria with co-authors efficiently. Most importantly, the criteria for decision should be scientific validity, reader comprehension, and manuscript consistency, rather than your convenience.
3. Write Politely and Be Specific
A good response is not a rebuttal intended to persuade the peer reviewers, but rather a record demonstrating an understanding of the feedback and how the manuscript has been improved. The clearest approach is to number every comment, cite the reviewer’s opinion, and then present the response and revisions below. Acknowledge the intent of the feedback in the first sentence, explain whether you accept it and the reasons in the following sentence, and indicate the location of the corrections at the end.
a) Clearly state the changes in the accepted feedback
Rather than simply writing “I have revised it,” explain specifically what and how you changed it. For example, writing something like, “Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we added statistical analysis methods to the research methods section and specified the analysis conditions and significance levels in paragraph 2 on page 8,” makes the subsequent review process easier. Another effective technique is to briefly quote the changed sentences in the response or to provide the page and line numbers together.
b) For opinions that are difficult to accept, provide academic grounds and alternatives
Even if you find it difficult to accept the opinion, you should not end with the expression “I do not agree.” First, state that you understand the intent of the request and explain why it is difficult to reflect it as is due to the current scope of the research or data structure. Then, present what alternatives have been incorporated to alleviate the reviewer’s concerns.
For example, “Additional experiments were not conducted as they extended beyond the scope of this study. But these limitations have been specified in the Discussion section, and the scope of generalization of the conclusions has been reduced,” demonstrates the rationality of the judgment.
c) Explain why you selected one reviewer’s opinion over the other
When following a conflicting opinion, do not state that “Reviewer 1’s opinion is more valid” or “Reviewer 2 misunderstood the study.” Instead, explain the reason for your choice based on the consistency between the research objectives and the manuscript. Here’s an example of a diplomatic yet clear response: “After reviewing both opinions, considering the core question of this study and the scope of the journal, we have maintained the analysis results while revising the explanations to be more concise.” If the conflict remains unresolved or the matter involves a significant change in the direction of the paper, you may even request a final judgment from the editor.
Conclusion
When receiving conflicting review opinions, the goal is not to unconditionally accept every request, but to understand the intent behind each opinion and evaluate the best next step based on consistent standards.
- First, prioritize based on the editor’s decision and the research question, and promptly rectify any common issues.
- Second, select the most appropriate response from (a) acceptance, (b) partial acceptance, (c) alternative revisions, and (d) justified rejection, and clearly document the reasons for the decision and the actual changes in the response.
Peer review is a process of discovering weaknesses in the manuscript and strengthening the logic. If you maintain the core of your research and communicate respectfully despite differing reviewer opinions, formulating responses can become an opportunity to complete the paper effectively.
Frequently Asked Questions on Responding to Peer Reviewers
1. Can I use AI tools to write responses to peer reviewers?
AI tools can be used to help understand peer reviewers’ comments better. For instance, you can use AI tools for translating Englilsh comments to your native language or even use them for summarizing long comments. However, always draft the responses first WITHOUT using the tools as they can convolute the intended meaning of your sentences.
Besides, AI tools lack the intelligence to interpret reviewer comments when there is domain-specific feedback. Therefore, avoid using AI tools for reviewer interpretation. Use them only to help refine the response after you have drafted them, perhaps for polishing the language.
2. How to disagree with a peer reviewer without sounding rude?
It is alright to disagree with a peer reviewer’s comment if you have sufficient evidence to support your argument. However, avoid using statements like “This is incorrectly interpreted by Reviewer 2” or “We do not agree with this comment.” Use neutral phrases and maintain a polite, professional tone. Here are a few sample sentences for disagreeing without sounding rude:
- Reviewer 2 makes an interesting point. However, we will be unable to <mention action> because <explain with well-supported evidence>.
- The scope of our study is limited to <specify the scope limits>. Hence, this additional analysis cannot be incorporated in the research paper. We have noted this as a limitation in our Discussion section (<specify line number>) and explained that we will explore this option in future studies.
3. What is a good example of responding to a review?
As a general best practice, start by thanking the editor and reviewers for their feedback on your paper. Then, address each comment point-by-point even if you have not made the requested changes. Ideally, you must mention the line number or page number, or both, for all the revisions made in the manuscript to make it easy for the second round of peer review. You can also summarize the major changes made at the beginning of the letter before explaining each one in detail.
4. Is there a standard length for response letter to reviewers?
There is no fixed length as such. Response letters can be as long as is necessary for you to address all peer reviewer comments while explaining and justifying the revisions with sufficient evidence. You can keep the responses brief and to the point. But do not leave comments half answered.
Looking for professional help? Get expert review of your responses to reviewers before resubmission! Check out Editage’s Response Letter Check service and ensure clear, complete, and appropriate responses that align with your revised manuscript.
