Trail Stop 11: Disagreement Among Reviewers

Becoming an Excellent Peer Reviewer: A Writer’s Camp Learning Trail

Jacqueline K. Owens, PhD, RN, CNE

Writer’s Camp Counselor

---

Peer review disagreement can be productive when it is handled appropriately.

---

The peer review process is used to offer assurance that published content has been vetted by experts in the field. A rigorous peer review process should provide constructive feedback for editors and authors to guide manuscripts from submission through the publication process. That’s exactly what peer review does when things go well, and professionalism and harmony prevail. But what happens if there is disagreement among the reviewers of a manuscript?

The short answer is peer reviewers will not always agree—and that is normal. In fact, disagreement among reviewers, or non-convergent reviews, is common and often helpful. Editors rely on multiple perspectives to evaluate manuscripts and make informed decisions. But non-convergent reviews must be handled with care.

This Trail Stop focuses on non-convergent reviews including editorial synthesis, reviewer humility, and what happens when manuscripts return for re-review.

Non-Convergent Reviews

Authors can feel challenged by superficial or unreasonable comments. They may perceive excessive requests for revision, comments that are overly critical, and contradictory suggestions as not helpful. Novice authors, who may have considerable clinical knowledge but lack experience in the publishing process, may be especially disheartened with contradictory comments. Although many authors assume peer reviewers will agree, reviewers often disagree—sometimes significantly. Contradictory comments can look like:

• Reviewer 1 recommends acceptance and Reviewer 2 recommends rejection.
• Reviewers focus on different aspects of a manuscript.
• Reviewers interpret conceptual arguments differently.
• Reviewers have differing methodological perspectives.

Even seasoned authors can feel unprepared to address non-convergent reviews. Unfortunately, authors who feel overwhelmed by revisions—especially those that have an element of disagreement—may give up in frustration.^1,2

However, disagreement doesn’t have to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Different thoughts, even those that are contradictory, represent appropriate scholarly dialogue on the topic at hand. In the  anonymous peer review process, reviewers don’t know each other’s thoughts or comments. Think of this process as people having different opinions in a discussion—but in the context of peer review. In a discussion, people may agree to disagree, they may come to consensus with one person persuading the other using appropriate rationale, or perhaps they find middle ground. The same outcomes can happen in the context of manuscript revisions, but it takes effort on the part of the journal editor and the reviewers. Of course, it takes effort from authors too, but let’s save that discussion for another article since we are on a Summer of Peer Review Trail.

Editor Synthesis

An important task for the editor is to read reviewer comments before sending them to authors. As editors make decisions, they must:

• Weigh reviewer expertise;
• Consider reviewer reasoning;
• Identify areas of agreement and disagreement; and
• Apply editorial judgment.

Some editors send reviewer comments verbatim and others tend to synthesize reviewer comments. It is always worth remembering that the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) recommends that editors do not significantly change or rewrite the reviews that they receive.³ That said, my preference is to take time to synthesize reviewer comments, while keeping the original intent of the reviewers very clear. I do this for several reasons. First, if the tone of the comment is overly critical, I may revise it slightly without changing the meaning. Second, I have the opportunity to omit inappropriate comments, if needed. For instance, a reviewer may have suggested a revision that goes against the style of  the journal. Reviewers are not experts in all the ins-and-outs of journal style, so it is not unusual for them to make this type of mistake. There is no sense in perpetuating an error so I will make the correction and not pass this on to the authors. Synthesizing comments also helps  me as the editor make a decision. This process may involve:

• Requesting revision despite a rejection recommendation.
• Rejecting the manuscript despite positive reviews.
• Seeking additional reviews.
• Making an editorial decision without additional review.

Understanding this process helps you as a reviewer recognize that  your role is to provide input, not make the final decision— which can help you to maintain perspective and avoid frustration.

Additionally, editors may want to add their thoughts when reviewers disagree. I have found that a few minutes spent upfront on my part is easier than risking author frustration and uncertainty about the best course of action. This might involve the editor:

• Suggesting a preferred action for authors to consider.
• Encouraging the authors to refer to the literature and include appropriate citations.
• Providing authors advice for how to state that no revision is appropriate. For example, the author could state their content supports Reviewer 1’s comments, they have reviewed and considered Reviewer 2’s comments, and have decided no change is warranted.

It can be particularly useful for editors to request a response table in these instances. A response table involves reviewer (verbatim) comments in one column and a brief description of any revisions in another column. This shows that authors have considered all comments and are offering thoughtful and appropriate revisions.

Adding a little bit of editorial guidance can help authors address non-convergent reviews.

Reviewer Humility

As a reviewer you may  feel strongly about  your recommendations. However, peer review is a collaborative process, and reasonable reviewers may disagree. So, I recommend that reviewers practice humility in this process. Reviewer humility includes:

• Recognizing that your perspective is one of several.
• Understanding that editors weigh multiple factors.
• Accepting that decisions may differ from your recommendation.

Providing thoughtful, well-reasoned feedback true to your expertise is more important than the final recommendation.

Receiving a Revised Manuscript

Reviewers are sometimes invited to review a revised manuscript when they provided the initial feedback. When this happens, reviewers may be given:

• Their original review;
• Other reviewers’ comments; and
• The authors’ response to reviewers.

Unlike the first time a review is completed, reviewing a revised manuscript means evaluating whether the concerns raised—by you and other reviewers—have been addressed. When reviewing a revision, it can be helpful to:

• Focus on how authors responded to prior comments;
• Evaluate whether revisions improve the manuscript;
• Avoid introducing entirely new major concerns unless necessary; and
• Recognize improvements.

Focusing on these tasks provides specific feedback that can help editors determine whether revisions are sufficient.

Reviewing a Revision You Did Not Review Initially

Sometimes reviewers are asked to evaluate a revised manuscript that they did not review in the first round. This situation occurs more often than reviewers realize. Reasons that this may happen include original reviewers declining a second review, reviewers were unavailable, reviewer contact information changed, or reviewers are no longer able to participate. So, what is your role in this case? How can  you help advance the scholarly process without adding contradictions and frustrations?

When reviewing a revision as a new reviewer, it can be helpful to:

• Read the decision letter and prior reviewer comments carefully.
• Review the authors’ responses to reviewers.
• Focus on whether concerns were addressed.
• Avoid introducing entirely new major issues unless essential.

This situation can be challenging, but thoughtful reviews still help editors make informed decisions.

Conclusion

Reviewers must understand that disagreement is normal—and encouraged. Editors and reviewers should handle non-convergent reviews appropriately so that they support authors to create clear, engaging, well-written manuscripts that can enhance the body of nursing knowledge.

References

1. Amerson R. Does the peer‐review process facilitate incivility among nurse scholars? Nursing Forum. 2018;53(4):496-497. doi:10.1111/nuf.12277
2. Cowell JM, Pierson CA. Helping students get published: Tips from journal editors. Nurse Author & Editor. 2016;26(4):1-8. doi:10.1111/j.1750-4910.2016.tb00233.x
3. Editing peer reviews. COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics. Accessed April 23, 2026. https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/editing-peer-reviews

Author: Jacqueline K. Owens

Reviewed and Edited by: Jenny Chicca and Leslie H. Nicoll

Copyright © 2026 Writer’s Camp and Jacqueline K. Owens CC-BY-ND 4.0

Citation: Owens JK. Trail stop 11: Disagreement among reviewers. The Writer’s Camp Journal. 2026;2(3):9. doi:10.5281/zenodo.21227415