I reviewing a paper and now getting the revised paper for the next round. Although it has improved overall, in some parts, the paper has become worse when the authors followed (in my opinion) poor advice from another reviewer (I can see the other peer review). Is it appropriate to advice the authors to ignore the advice from the other reviewer and revert this particular change? It concerns a minor point.

  • 1
    Can you check with the editor, if she can suggest something on this conflict?
    – Coder
    Commented Jan 10, 2020 at 17:40
  • 3
    Dueling referees. One of the author's bigger fears.
    – puppetsock
    Commented Jan 10, 2020 at 19:53
  • Seems there should be something like a “director’s cut” for academic papers. Which would be the original paper plus what the author thinks are improvements due to reviewer comments.
    – gnasher729
    Commented Jan 11, 2020 at 22:11
  • @gnasher729 In some Copernicus EGU journals that is exactly what happens, and the reviewer comments are public too.
    – gerrit
    Commented Jan 12, 2020 at 10:28

1 Answer 1


Ask yourself whether it is worth it for a "minor point". But you can ask the editor for advice. And, as you suggest, you can also just give your best advice for the fix. You don't need to speak badly of the other reviewer to do so. Just say what you think the authors should do to make the paper better.

Conflicting reviews are common enough.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .