How to Respond When You Disagree With a Reviewer
Disagreement with a reviewer is acceptable when it is evidence-based, specific, and professional. The goal is to resolve the scientific concern, not to win an argument.
When you disagree with a reviewer, first identify the underlying concern and check whether a clarification could resolve it. Then acknowledge the point, state your position without defensive language, explain the evidence or methodological rationale, and cite relevant literature where useful. If the requested change would be inappropriate or impossible, explain why. Even when you keep the original approach, consider revising the manuscript to prevent the same misunderstanding for future readers.
Separate the Concern From the Requested Fix
A reviewer may correctly identify a clarity problem but suggest a change that is not methodologically appropriate. Address the valid concern even if you reject the exact requested solution.
Use Evidence, Not Authority
Avoid saying that a method was used simply because it is common or because the authors are experienced. Explain the study-specific rationale and supporting evidence.
Offer a Constructive Alternative
If the requested analysis cannot be justified, consider a sensitivity analysis, clearer limitation, additional explanation, or narrowed conclusion that addresses the concern without introducing a misleading result.
Escalate Conflicts Through the Editor
If reviewer requests conflict with each other or with the editor's instructions, explain the conflict clearly in the response letter and, when needed, ask the editor for direction rather than guessing.
Frequently asked questions
Not automatically. A respectful, evidence-based disagreement is a normal part of peer review, but an unsupported or dismissive response can hurt the revision.
When the disagreement concerns theory, methods, or established practice, relevant references can strengthen the explanation.
Explain the conflict and your chosen solution, and prioritize the editor's direction if it is available.
References
- PMC — A Practical Guide on Responding to Reviews
Peer-reviewed practical guidance on preparing revisions and point-by-point responses.
- ICMJE Recommendations
International recommendations on responsible manuscript preparation, reporting, and editorial practice.