When two reviewers give conflicting advice, prioritize the editor's guidance first, then address both concerns by explaining your reasoning in the response letter.
Assess the Nature of the Conflict
Start by determining whether the disagreement is fundamental or superficial. Reviewers might conflict on interpretation (one sees your method as innovative, another as flawed) or on presentation (one wants more detail, another wants brevity). Fundamental conflicts often stem from different theoretical frameworks or disciplinary perspectives, while superficial ones usually involve stylistic preferences.
Follow the Editor's Lead
The editor's decision letter typically indicates which concerns are mandatory versus optional. Editors often recognize when reviewers disagree and will signal which direction to take. If the editor doesn't clarify, it's appropriate to politely ask in your response: "Given the conflicting recommendations on [specific issue], would you prefer we prioritize Reviewer 1's suggestion to expand the methodology section, or Reviewer 2's request to condense it?"
Address Both Reviewers Transparently
In your response letter, acknowledge the conflict directly: "We note that Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2 offered different perspectives on [issue]. After careful consideration, we have chosen to [your decision] because [evidence-based reasoning]." This demonstrates you've thoughtfully weighed both viewpoints rather than simply picking the easier path.
Use Evidence to Justify Your Choice
Ground your decision in the manuscript's goals, the field's conventions, or empirical evidence. For example: "While Reviewer 2 suggested removing the qualitative analysis, we've retained it because it directly addresses the research question stated in our introduction and aligns with mixed-methods standards in [field]." WisPaper's Scholar QA can help you quickly verify whether your reasoning aligns with established practices by searching your literature base with traceable evidence.
When in Doubt, Compromise Strategically
If both suggestions have merit, consider a middle path. Add a supplementary section addressing one reviewer's concern while keeping the main text aligned with the other's preference. This shows flexibility without compromising your manuscript's integrity.
Remember: reviewers are advisors, not dictators. Your job is to improve the paper, not to satisfy every individual preference.
