Reviewer 1 says cut it, Reviewer 2 says expand it: how to respond.

When reviewers give you contradictory comments, respond by naming the conflict openly in your letter, choosing the position you can defend with evidence, and telling the editor why you chose it. You are not required to satisfy both reviewers, and you should not pretend to. The editor read both reports before sending them to you, so the contradiction already sits on their desk; your job is to show you noticed it and made a reasoned call they can simply confirm.

Why do reviewers contradict each other?

Reviewers contradict each other because editors recruit them for different strengths, so each one reads your manuscript through a different lens. The clash is a byproduct of how peer review is assembled, not evidence that one report is careless.

A methods specialist wants your estimation strategy spelled out line by line. A reviewer invited for breadth wants the paper readable in one sitting. Each is doing exactly the job the editor asked of them, and those jobs pull the text in opposite directions.

Reviewers also work blind to each other. Neither sees the other report before submitting, so nothing forces their prescriptions to converge. When Reviewer 1 tells you to cut the theory section and Reviewer 2 tells you to extend it, they are not arguing with each other. They never met.

Editors know all of this. Weighing the clash is part of what your revision letter is for.

Map the conflict: same issue, different prescriptions

Before drafting a single reply, put the two conflicting comments side by side and ask what each reviewer was reacting to. Often they diagnosed the same weakness and prescribed opposite cures.

Take the classic pair. Reviewer 1 writes that the background section is too long and should be cut. Reviewer 2 writes that the framing is unclear and the background should be expanded. Read literally, you cannot do both. Read diagnostically, both reviewers are telling you the section fails at its job: it takes up space without orienting the reader. A rewritten section that is shorter and better organized can answer both comments at once, and your response letter gets to say so.

Not every conflict dissolves this neatly. Sometimes the disagreement is real, as when one reviewer wants a conservative interpretation of your results and the other wants you to claim more. Then you have to choose a side, and the next question is who makes that call.

Should you decide yourself or ask the editor first?

Decide yourself when the conflict is about presentation, and ask the editor when the two paths would produce materially different papers. That one rule covers nearly every case.

Length, structure, emphasis, which figure belongs in the main text: these are presentation calls. Make the choice, justify it in a sentence or two, and move on. No editor wants an email about whether Section 4 should run four pages or six.

Substance is different. If Reviewer 1 wants a new experiment and Reviewer 2 wants the existing analysis reframed, the two revisions diverge so far that guessing wrong wastes an entire round of review. This matters most after a major revision decision, where the editor expects substantive change and will send the paper back to the same reviewers. A short message to the editorial office, laying out both paths in neutral terms and asking which serves the journal better, costs you a few days. Revising down the wrong path costs a full cycle.

If you do write that email, keep it strictly neutral. Quote both comments, state that they point in opposite directions, and ask for guidance. Do not argue your preferred side there; save the argument for the response letter.

How do you write the response so neither reviewer feels ignored?

Answer both reviewers point by point, quote the conflicting comments next to each other at least once, and frame your decision as a trade-off you weighed rather than a verdict on who was right.

The point-by-point response format already gives you the skeleton. When two comments collide, add a cross-reference: under Reviewer 1's comment, note that Reviewer 2 raised the opposite concern and point to where you resolve the pair. Both reviewers see their comment acknowledged in full, and the editor sees that you connected the reports instead of answering each in isolation.

Tone matters more here than anywhere else in the letter. Never write that a reviewer misread the paper, and never write that the other reviewer is correct. Ranking the reports invites the slighted reviewer to defend their position in the next round, which is the last thing your resubmission needs. Write about the manuscript instead: what the section must accomplish and which version accomplishes it, backed by evidence rather than preference. The same discipline that lets you disagree with a reviewer politely applies twice over when two of them disagree with each other.

Worked example: one wants it shorter, one wants more detail

The cleanest resolution to the shorten-versus-expand conflict is usually structural: move the detail out of the main text rather than choosing between cutting and adding.

Suppose Reviewer 1 writes: "Section 3 runs to five pages and slows the paper considerably. I suggest condensing it to no more than two." And Reviewer 2 writes: "The derivation in Section 3 omits several steps. As written, I could not verify equation 7. Please show the intermediate steps."

A response that serves both might read:

Both reviewers commented on Section 3, in opposite directions. Reviewer 1 asked us to condense it; Reviewer 2 asked for the omitted steps in the derivation. We have done both. The main text now presents the derivation in outline across two pages, and the complete derivation, including every intermediate step needed to verify equation 7, appears in Appendix A. We believe this addresses both concerns, and we are glad to rebalance the material if the editor prefers.

That closing clause does quiet work. It tells the editor the final call is theirs without surrendering the position you chose, and it gives neither reviewer grounds to feel overruled.

Everything around the contested points follows the ordinary rules of a response to reviewers letter: thank the reviewers briefly, answer every comment, show the changed text. One last caution before you resubmit. Contradictory advice tempts authors into restructuring that quietly breaks a formatting rule or a word limit, which is exactly the kind of slip a manuscript check with Waraq exists to catch before an editor does.

A contradiction in your reviews is not a trap. Handled plainly, it becomes a decision you have already made well, presented to the one person with the authority to confirm it.