Often reviewers are invited to conduct reviews without having expertise in the specific subject. This is understandable, as there are numerous areas within science, and finding reviewers who specialize exactly in your area is quite difficult.

Always remember that posting superb comments about your work shows reviewers an attitude against the principles of science itself. Even if the comments are quite contradictory, be polite and state your point by quoting necessary literature.

Also remember that everything you answer will make the reviewer willing or unwilling to accept your article.

I hope it helped you.

Thanks Dr. Vinicius for your important viewpoint. But, editors finally accept articles.

Of course, politeness in responding to contradictory views is key. Many thanks

The author must remember that some reviewers may be inexperienced, not be subject-matter experts and have their own biases perhaps due to lack of maturity. Thus it is a good idea not to take these personally and respond to their comments or concerns politely with proper rebuttals as necessary.

Thanks Dr. Srini for your helpful comment.

It is necessary to respect the other opinion and to express a view consistent with the requirements of research and publication.

I agree with previous comments.

In addition, it is not necessary to answer all question given by reviewers...especially if they are contradictory..

Also, not all suggestions of reviewers should be accepted always.

I completely agree with the previous answer by Jelena B Popović-Djordjević. Namely, my experience shows that the paper would be mainly accepted for publications if some suggestions of reviewer(s) are not accepted.

If the editorial decision of your article is positive after initial reviewings, it is important to address the key issues emphasized by reviewers. Even if the key issues make contradictions or unacceptable, it is important to counter-argue the issues with appropriate evidence. As others said, your tone of addressing the key issues is important to make a pleasant atmosphere. Moreover, usually, you have an opportunity to explain how did you address the reviewers' comments while submitting the revision to the editor. This can be used to communicate the reasons for not agreeing with (some) of the reviewers' comments.

Dear Dr. Manjula,

I certainly agree with you. Evidence-based response to reviewer's comments when an author is not in unison with it is very appropriate. Reviewer's may not understand an author fully and this may have called for a particular comment which may be misplaced. But, a respectful explanation with evidence can help the reviewer to re-adjust their initial view. Thanks for partaking in the discussion. Best regards

Dickson

There are two aspects to keep in mind. First, reply to a reviewer ought to be always polite and strictly to the essence of the contradiction you see, or the circumstances the reviewer is missing. Second, the article has to be written in a such clear way that any researcher in your domain (not necessarily in your narrow subject matter) would be able to understand the matters discussed.

Dear Prof. Len,

Many thanks for sharing your expert opinion on this issues. All the best

You are utterly right Dr. Joshua. At a writing workshop organized by the British Academy, we were reminded that reviewers are not 'gods', they can make mistakes or may not have understood a concept well. We must politely offer our evidence-based responses.

It will be good to have a table with two columns for the response. One column for Author's response and the other for reviewer's comments.

Address each comment exhaustively and show the page(s) and paragraph where the changes have been made.

This saves time and make it easy for reviewers to know at a quick glance the corrected aspects of your manuscript.

This question come:

How should one react to very harsh comments by reviewers? I remember a professor wrote to an editor to disclose the identity of a blind reviewer while asking the anonymous reviewer who write harsh comments on his manuscript to write an apology letter to him. Interesting! Should this be done?

Dear Prof Dickson Adom , thanks for this nice question. I try to maintain utmost impartiality; free from bias in respect to institution, area, locality; emotion; and specially ego that might be caused by my partial ignorance regarding particular aspect of the study or discussions in the paper I review. And I also expect these standard of criteria from my peers. Regards- Rabiul

Dear respected Rabiul Alam,

Thanks for sharing your expert opinion. I am very grateful. They are very helpful. Kind regards

Dickson

@ Rabiul Alam,

i used to take it in a positive way.

I try to be flexible! Sometimes you need to compromise and make required modifications but that does not mean not to defend your idea/data.

Just be positive, open to comments, and provide reasonable rationale when needed!

Cantraindicated Review process always post mortems our work - Re -----Re Search .

Great views. Thanks for sharing them

Although I believe I know more about the subject than anyone else, if I am contradicted and the person contradicting me is right, I find that gratifying. I go away and think.

Nice one there respected Dr. Stanley. Thanks for been part of the discussion. Kind regards

A referee for a submission may have objections; that is normal and can be dealt with. I think a more significant problem arises when the referees for a submission contradict each other.

If the reviewer's objection is about second priority issues, subdue to it. If you disagree on a principle level objection, make a detailed explanation as to why you disagree. Nothing convince people better that a simple, transparent explanation. However, make sure you're right. Otherwise, a reviewer may reject the article without any farther ado.

You must try to find a compromise between them. Often this means addressing the more critical comment.

But when you resubmit, be sure to point out respectfully in your "response to reviewers" that the reviewers contradicted each other and explain how you have tried to satisfy both of them.

If you actually disagree with a comment, explain why using evidence to support your perspective.

Many thanks Profs Michael, Len and Karl. I appreciate your very insightful views. Kind regards

Where recommendation / citation is welcome then contra -indication also very much welcome to find out the limitation of a particular research and to improve the same .

You don’t have to accept all the suggestions made by the reviewers. If you don’t agree with their suggestion, give proper explanation for your stand.

I think the suggestions by the reviewer must be applied. if your opinion differ from the reviewer you can explain by a letter to the reviewer.

Thanks Mazin. I was saying that how do you handle contradictory comments from two different reviewers about your manuscript? For instance, one reviewer suggests you make your introductory section concise while the other reviewer wants you to expand it to include other areas in the scholarship. In this scenario, what will you do in your position as an author? Thank you.

Dear Dickson Adom

the best solution is send a letter to the editor to get a suitable opinion.

Okay Mazen. This may help the author to clarify things.

Dear Dickson Adom, scenarios like the one you mention (two reviewers and contradicting recommendations as to how succint/inclusive the Introduction or whichever part of your work should be) are not rare. It is your task, as YOU are the owner/author of the article, to adopt a stance and let the reviewers know why you have decided to include certain literature while you have ommitted some other works. The amount of the literature you include depends on what you, the author, consider relevant for the research you have carried out. Of course, the word limit imposed by journals will also have to say a word in this matter, but I suggest you keep the things you consider important in your work/article.

Additionally, I would recommend Ken Hyland’s suggestions on how to find your voice as an academic author. One of his most edifying works on this topic is Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse Article Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse