I am revising a manuscript I submitted to a reputable journal with nice impact factor. I came to realise that two of the reviewers have opposing recommendations.
What do you suggest I do or how do I respond to those recommendations from peer reviewers?
Well, obviously the editors of the journal didn't do their job, which is noticing such contradiction and advising the author on how to handle them. In situations like this, I pick the recommendation I like most, follow it, and make explicit that there were conflicting recommendations and my reasons for following one of them in the letter accompanying my revised version. It is rather important to make this explicit because otherwise the reviewer whose demands you ignored might get annoyed.
It is common to send a cover letter describing and explaining your responses to the reviews with the revised version. This would be important in your case, and might even wake up the editor.
- Step back – think whether the reviews are as contradictory as they first appear
- Contact the editor for guidance if none was provided with the reviews
- Address as many of the comments as you can
- Provide a detailed response, focusing on any comments you have not addressed, i guess this is one of the best.... ( https://www.wiley.com/network/researchers/submission-and-navigating-peer-review/how-to-deal-with-conflicting-reviewer-comments )
Normally, in such a case where there are two completely opposing reviews, the Editor should ask a third reviewer to act as an "adjudicator". However, this is the editor's job, not yours. I would just try to address the more critical review point by point and be happy about the more positive review.
preprint and post-publication review - the best way to handle nepotism, protectionism, plagiarism...
Respond most accurately and if it is a subjective subject your position as it stands according to all facts and circumstances, and beliefs you have...
Please go to this link :
https://www.editage.com/insights/how-to-deal-with-conflicting-reviewer-comments-a-case-study
Dear Giorgi Macharashvili I'm not sure if I understood your answer...😳
Dear Frank T. Edelmann, in the post-Soviet totalitarian systems there are huge problems with nepotism, protectionism, plagiarism ... and double-blind peer review is used not only to cover up these problems, but even for unofficial ideological censorship. Thus, raising scientific standards requires careful scrutiny after publication.
The final decision rests with the editor or the editor in chief. It is best to seek editor's arbitration.
You don't need to worry but answer clearly.
In my opinion, you should do your judgment and choose who you will follow while the other you will convince him by some references and explanations.
Salam docteur,
Je crois qu'il va vous falloir revenir sur le protocole suivi par les reviewers pour réaliser leurs revues systématiques et revenir aussi à la partie discussion qui va vous renseigner sur la validité des recommandations formulées.
Dear Jia Bainga Kangbai for some more information about this problem please also see this potentially useful link entitled
"It’s a tie! How to deal with conflicting recommendations from reviewers"
https://www.elsevier.com/connect/editors-update/its-a-tie!-how-to-deal-with-conflicting-recommendations-from-reviewers
Try to address the comments of both the reviewers with a balance. The final decision rests with the editor. However, be polite while replying even if you do not agree with some of the comments.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Journal Impact Factor