Every reviewer has different background and experience.  It is those things that result in the comments on reviewed papers.  

When I review a paper, I draw on the lessons I have learned from past reviews of my own papers, my knowledge about the discipline, my knowledge of research design, and my English language and academic writing proficiency.

Nobody else has the same background and experience as myself.  

Dear Michael and Mohamed,

Thank you for your contribution. However, significant difference has been found between two reviewer. I am confused which suggestion/comment need to address. 

It is common to get radically different reviews from two referees, even from the same journal. You must take the best of their comments and implement them. You must also do whatever both referees suggest. Where there are differences, you need to take a stance, and tell the editor how you have addressed each difference in revising your paper. 

Dear Mohamed,

Usually these reviewers belongs to different journals. 

Dear Mohamed,

Sometimes peer reviewer from same journal also has contradictory comment/suggestion. What we need to do in such cases.  

Hello Ramesh, I have recently encountered this situation.  We sent a paper to journal A.  The first reviewer said that I should state a stronger theoretical background for the study, but there was no need to dwell on factor analysis, or present too much data.  But the second reviewer said that I should do a solid factor analysis.  Both reviewers said that the paper would benefit from the input of colleagues who are experienced researchers.  So we did our best; we stated a strong reason for the study, we did an EFA and CFA, and we got two experienced researchers to give some intellectual contribution.  We even changed the Title of the paper after those transformations.  I hope the paper will now be accepted by journal A.

Are there bias to review a manuscript ?

It is fairly common for different reviewers within the same journal to provide - sometimes conflicting view on your article / approach to improve your article (this is due to different reviewers' profile & blind review process which is understandable).  Sometimes, the journal editor will arbitrate / discuss with the reviewers before commenting / telling you what you need to improve.  Sometimes, as authors we need to write back to editor to clarify reviewers' comments, clarify our points, provide more empirical evidence etc so that the editor can advise what should be the direction on our article.

Respected Yeoh and Fung,

Thank You for your contribution.

I strongly agree that good tag of the institute like IIT IIM and the co authors of the paper have a strong influence on the selection of the paper. 

Also, i have noticed that few journals ask for the help in English. If you take so the probability of the selection is higher

NICMAR must work hard to overcome this trend. They can do it. My best wishes

I think every human being is totally separate entity , so they can have separate opinion which is mainly influenced by him/her education and experiences .

As Editor-in-chief I can only confirm what Han Ping Fun has said: all reviewers are different and have different expertises. There is only so much general comment that a reviewer can provide, but once it gets down to details there can be different viewpoints,opinions and expertises. That is confusing, but also the strength of the process. You want your article to be as good as possible. To understand how reviewers (in general) look, you can try to do the small on-line course of Springer Nature at https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/journal-author/peer-review-academy. It helps you to understand how most reviewers look at a paper.

Dear J.W. Foppe,

Thank you for your contribution and valuable link.

Sincerely,

Ramesh 

It depends on the quality of the reviewer, i.e. his depth of knowledge on the research topic, his time and effort.