Reviewer disagreement is a normal part of peer review. Two qualified experts can read the same manuscript and reach different conclusions about its methods, significance, or suitability for publication. When that happens, your task is not to force agreement with the other reviewer. It is to give the editor an independent, well-supported assessment they can use alongside the other reviews.
Understanding your role makes co-reviewer disagreement easier to handle. You are advising the editor, not sharing responsibility for the final editorial decision. A useful reviewer report explains what you think, why you think it, and which issues are most important for the manuscript.
How common is reviewer disagreement?
Reviewer disagreement is well documented in journal peer review. A 2010 meta-analysis by Bornmann, Mutz, and Daniel examined 70 reliability coefficients from 48 studies involving 19,443 manuscripts. The authors found low agreement between independent reviewers, with a mean intraclass correlation or squared correlation of about 0.34.
That finding does not mean the process is arbitrary. Reviewers may bring different subject expertise, methodological priorities, and interpretations to the same manuscript review. Some peer review disagreement reflects a genuine difference in expert judgment, particularly when reviewers weigh strengths and limitations differently.
Editors are therefore accustomed to receiving assessments that do not fully align. Your report does not need to match another reviewer’s conclusion to be useful. It needs to make the reasoning behind your assessment clear.
How should you respond to conflicting peer reviews?
When you become aware of conflicting peer reviews, keep your own assessment centered on the manuscript. Write from your reading of the work rather than turning the reviewer report into a response to another reviewer. In many peer review models, you will not see other reports until after submitting your own. In open review systems, or in journals that share reviewer comments, you may see them earlier. Either way, another reviewer’s conclusion should not change the standard you apply to the manuscript. If another reviewer appears to have made a factual error or interpreted a method differently, you can point the editor to the specific issue. Keep the wording factual and tied to the manuscript.
For example:
“I would draw the editor’s attention to the statistical approach described in Section 3. Reviewer 2 considers it appropriate; I have concerns about the assumption of homoscedasticity and would ask the authors to address this directly.”
This is useful because it identifies the point of reviewer disagreement and explains why it affects your assessment. It gives the editor something concrete to evaluate without turning co-reviewer disagreement into a personal exchange. Do not soften a serious concern simply because another reviewer is more positive. If you believe a methodological problem could affect the findings, explain it clearly in your reviewer report and let the editor weigh the different assessments.
What if the disagreement is about significance or novelty?
Peer review disagreement about significance can be particularly difficult because there may be no single factual error to resolve. Two reviewers can agree that a study is technically sound and still differ on whether its contribution is sufficiently important or novel for a particular journal. When reviewer disagreement centers on significance, explain the basis of your judgment. Describe what you understand the existing knowledge base to be, what the manuscript adds, and why that addition does or does not meet the journal’s threshold.
Simply saying that “the contribution is not significant enough” gives the editor little to work with. A stronger reviewer report identifies which part of the claimed contribution is already established, which part appears new, and why the remaining advance may or may not justify publication in that journal. This reasoning is especially useful when conflicting peer reviews lead to different recommendations. It gives the editor a basis for comparing the assessments rather than simply choosing between verdicts.
What should you do when reviewers disagree during revision?
During revision, focus on whether the authors have adequately addressed the concerns you originally raised. Reviewer disagreement often becomes more visible at this stage because reviewers may be satisfied to different degrees with the revised manuscript. If your concern has been resolved, say so. If it remains, explain what is still missing and why it continues to affect your manuscript review. You do not need to determine whether another reviewer’s concerns have also been satisfied. Your own view can also change. If the authors provide new evidence, a stronger explanation, or a correction that resolves your concern, update your recommendation accordingly. Changing your assessment because the manuscript has improved is different from changing it simply to reduce co-reviewer disagreement.
When should reviewer disagreement be raised privately with the editor?
Most reviewer disagreement belongs within the normal peer review process. A private message is more appropriate when the concern relates to the integrity or fairness of the process rather than a legitimate difference in scholarly judgment. Examples include a possible undisclosed conflict of interest, a report that appears personally hostile toward the authors, or a factual misrepresentation that could materially affect the editorial decision.
The Committee on Publication Ethics guidance states that reviews should be objective, reviewers should declare competing interests, and views should be expressed clearly with supporting arguments where necessary. If you have a process concern, keep your private note brief and factual. Describe what you observed and why it may affect the editorial process. Avoid making allegations that go beyond the evidence available to you.
Key takeaways
Reviewer disagreement does not require consensus. Your responsibility is to provide an independent reviewer report that explains your reasoning clearly enough for the editor to use. When conflicting peer reviews reflect different scholarly judgments, stay focused on the manuscript and the evidence behind your view. During revision, assess whether your own concerns have been addressed rather than trying to reconcile every difference between reviewers. If the disagreement reveals a possible conflict of interest, personal hostility, or another integrity concern, raise it privately and factually with the editor.
Try ReviewerOne
ReviewerOne’s AI-assisted peer review platform gives reviewers structured guidance and AI-assisted checks that can support manuscript review while keeping scholarly judgment with the reviewer. ReviewerOne also brings together reviewer training, community, and recognition in one ecosystem.
Sign up for ReviewerOne’s AI-assisted peer review platform
