When to Concede vs. When to Contest

By Dr. Zubair Khalid, DVM, MS, PhD · 2026-08-28

Quick Answer

• Use a structured decision tree to evaluate each reviewer comment on scientific validity, feasibility, and impact before choosing to revise or contest.
• Contest only when you can provide specific evidence or a clear methodological justification that the reviewer's request is incorrect or impractical.
• A contested point still requires a professional, evidence-based response in your rebuttal letter, and some disagreements may be resolved through editorial mediation.

Understanding the Reviewer Disagreement Problem

Peer review exists to improve manuscripts before publication, but reviewers sometimes make requests that conflict with your data, your methods, or your practical constraints. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describes peer review as a process that should be fair and constructive, yet it also acknowledges that editors make final decisions. Your job as an author is to determine which reviewer comments represent legitimate improvements and which ones you can reasonably contest.

The challenge is not simply about winning an argument. Every response you write becomes part of the public record of your manuscript's evaluation. A defensive tone or an unsupported rejection can damage your credibility with the editor. Conversely, accepting every suggestion without evaluation can introduce errors, weaken your study, or force you to perform analyses that are not appropriate for your data.

Authors who struggle with this decision often fall into one of two patterns. The first pattern is automatic compliance, where the author revises the manuscript to satisfy every comment regardless of whether the change improves the science. The second pattern is automatic resistance, where the author contests every point without considering whether the reviewer has identified a real weakness. Both patterns produce poor outcomes.

The decision framework presented here gives you a systematic method for evaluating each point of disagreement. It uses three primary criteria: scientific validity, feasibility, and impact. You apply these criteria to each reviewer comment, then choose a response strategy that is defensible and professional.

At a Glance

The table below summarizes the main decision paths you will use when evaluating a reviewer comment that you initially disagree with.

Core Principles for Evaluating Reviewer Comments

Scientific Validity as the First Test

Before you decide whether to contest a reviewer comment, ask whether the request is scientifically valid. A valid request is one that is grounded in accepted research methods, statistical practice, or the standards of your field. The National Library of Medicine Research Methods Resources provides access to authoritative texts on research methodology that can help you determine whether a reviewer's methodological request is appropriate.

For example, a reviewer might ask you to report confidence intervals instead of p-values alone. This request is scientifically valid because confidence intervals convey effect size and precision. A reviewer might ask you to perform a subgroup analysis that your study was not designed to test. This request may be invalid if the subgroup analysis would produce misleading results due to low statistical power.

When you evaluate validity, consider whether the request aligns with the standards described in the EQUATOR Network reporting guidelines. These guidelines exist to improve the transparency and accuracy of research reporting. If a reviewer asks you to remove information that a reporting guideline requires, the request is not valid. If a reviewer asks you to add information that a reporting guideline recommends, the request is likely valid.

Feasibility and Resource Constraints

A request can be scientifically valid but practically impossible. Feasibility includes time, funding, equipment, data availability, and ethical constraints. For example, a reviewer might ask you to collect additional samples from a population that is no longer accessible. The request is valid in principle, but you cannot fulfill it.

Feasibility also includes statistical constraints. A reviewer might ask you to perform a subgroup analysis that requires a sample size you do not have. The analysis would be underpowered and could produce misleading results. In this case, the request is not feasible in a way that would produce meaningful information.

When you contest a request on feasibility grounds, you must explain the specific constraint. Do not simply say that the request is impossible. Describe the resource limitation, the time constraint, or the statistical problem. The editor needs to understand why the request cannot be fulfilled.

Impact on the Manuscript

The third criterion is impact. Some reviewer requests are valid and feasible but would not materially change your conclusions. Other requests are valid and feasible and would strengthen the manuscript. You should generally concede to requests that improve the manuscript, even if you disagree with the reviewer's reasoning.

Impact also includes the risk of a negative outcome. If you contest a point and the editor agrees with the reviewer, you may face additional revision rounds or rejection. If you concede to a point that is scientifically wrong, you may publish a manuscript that contains an error. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices emphasizes that authors and reviewers share responsibility for the integrity of the published record. This responsibility should guide your impact assessment.

The Decision Tree for Each Reviewer Point

The decision tree below shows the path you should follow for each reviewer comment. You apply the three criteria in sequence, then choose a response strategy.

flowchart TD
    A[Reviewer comment received] --> B{Is the request scientifically valid?}
    B -->|No| C[Contest with evidence]
    B -->|Yes| D{Is the request feasible?}
    D -->|No| E[Contest with constraint explanation]
    D -->|Yes| F{Will the request improve the manuscript?}
    F -->|No| G[Contest with justification]
    F -->|Yes| H[Concede and revise]
    C --> I[Write rebuttal letter]
    E --> I
    G --> I
    H --> I

The flowchart shows the basic decision path. In practice, you will encounter comments that fall between categories. A request may be partially valid, or it may be feasible only with significant effort. Use the flowchart as a starting point, then apply your judgment to the specific context.

Step 1: Determine Scientific Validity

Start by asking whether the request is consistent with accepted research methods. Use the National Library of Medicine Research Methods Resources to check methodological standards. If the request contradicts established methods, you can contest it.

A request can also be invalid because it is based on a misunderstanding of your study. For example, a reviewer might ask you to control for a variable that you already controlled for in the design. You can contest this request by pointing to the relevant section of your methods.

Step 2: Assess Feasibility

If the request is valid, ask whether you can fulfill it. Consider the following constraints:

• Data availability: Do you have the data needed to perform the requested analysis?
• Equipment and software: Do you have access to the tools needed?
• Time: Can you complete the work within the revision deadline?
• Funding: Does the request require resources you cannot obtain?
• Ethical approval: Does the request require new approvals that you cannot obtain?

The NIH Grants and Funding pages describe the resource planning that goes into research projects. If your original grant did not include the resources needed to fulfill a reviewer request, you may not be able to obtain them within the revision period.

Step 3: Evaluate Impact

If the request is valid and feasible, ask whether it will improve the manuscript. A request that improves clarity, reproducibility, or transparency is worth conceding. A request that adds unnecessary complexity or distracts from the main findings may be worth contesting.

The EQUATOR Network provides reporting guidelines that can help you determine whether a request aligns with the standards for your study type. If the request would make your manuscript more consistent with the reporting guideline, concede. If the request would make the manuscript less consistent, contest.

Practical Workflow for Responding to Reviewer Comments

Step 1: Create a Comment Log

Before you write any responses, create a table that lists every reviewer comment. Include the reviewer number, the comment text, the location in the manuscript, and your initial assessment. This log will help you track your decisions and ensure that you respond to every point.

The log should also include your decision for each comment: concede, contest, or partially concede. A partial concession is appropriate when you agree with part of a request but not all of it. For example, a reviewer might ask you to add a sensitivity analysis and a new outcome measure. You might agree to the sensitivity analysis but contest the new outcome measure because it is not supported by your data.

Step 2: Draft the Response Letter

The response letter is the document you submit with your revised manuscript. It should address every reviewer comment in order. For each comment, you will either describe the change you made or explain why you did not make the change.

The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe the responsibilities of authors in the peer review process. Your response letter should be professional, specific, and evidence-based. Avoid defensive language and avoid personal comments about the reviewer.

Step 3: Make the Manuscript Changes

For comments you concede to, make the changes in the manuscript and describe them in the response letter. For comments you contest, do not make changes to the manuscript. Instead, explain why you believe the request is not appropriate.

Step 4: Submit and Track the Outcome

After you submit the revision, track the outcome. If the editor requests another round of revisions, review the new comments and apply the same decision process. If the editor rejects the manuscript, you may choose to appeal or submit to another journal.

Options and Tradeoffs in Responding to Reviewers

Option 1: Full Concession

Full concession means you accept the reviewer's request and make the change. This option is appropriate when the request is valid, feasible, and improves the manuscript. The tradeoff is that you may spend time on changes that are not essential to the science.

Option 2: Partial Concession

Partial concession means you accept part of the request and reject the rest. This option is appropriate when a request contains multiple elements, some of which are valid and some of which are not. The tradeoff is that you must explain clearly which parts you accepted and which parts you rejected.

Option 3: Contest with Evidence

Contesting with evidence means you reject the request and provide a specific justification. This option is appropriate when the request is invalid, infeasible, or would harm the manuscript. The tradeoff is that you risk a negative response from the reviewer or the editor.

Option 4: Contest with an Alternative

Contesting with an alternative means you reject the specific request but offer a different approach that addresses the reviewer's underlying concern. This option is often the most effective because it shows that you have considered the reviewer's point and found a better way to address it.

For example, a reviewer might ask you to perform a randomized controlled trial to test your intervention. Your study is observational, and a trial is not feasible. You can contest the request and offer an alternative, such as a propensity score analysis or a discussion of the limitations of the observational design.

Observations and Measurements for Your Response

What to Measure in Your Response Letter

The response letter should be measured in terms of completeness and clarity. Every reviewer comment should receive a response. The response should be specific enough that the reviewer can find the change in the manuscript.

You should also measure the tone of your response. A response that is defensive or dismissive can create a negative impression. A response that is respectful and evidence-based is more likely to be accepted.

What to Record in Your Response Log

Your response log should include the following information for each comment:

• The reviewer number
• The comment text
• The location in the manuscript
• Your decision (concede, contest, or revise)
• The reason for your decision
• The change you made or the justification you provided

This log will help you track your decisions and ensure that you have responded to every point.

Common Failure Patterns in Responding to Reviewers

Failure Pattern 1: Automatic Concession

Some authors concede to every reviewer request because they fear rejection. This pattern can produce a manuscript that is inconsistent or that contains changes that are not scientifically justified. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe the responsibility of authors to maintain the integrity of the research record. Automatic concession can undermine that integrity.

Failure Pattern 2: Automatic Contest

Some authors contest every reviewer request because they believe their original manuscript is correct. This pattern can produce a response letter that is defensive and unconvincing. The editor may side with the reviewer, and the manuscript may be rejected.

Failure Pattern 3: Ignoring the Reviewer's Underlying Concern

Some authors respond to the literal text of a reviewer comment without considering the underlying concern. For example, a reviewer might ask for a specific analysis because they are concerned about confounding. If you reject the analysis without addressing the confounding concern, the reviewer will not be satisfied.

Failure Pattern 4: Incomplete Responses

Some authors respond to the main point of a reviewer comment but ignore secondary points. This can lead to a second round of revisions or rejection. You must respond to every point in every comment.

Failure Pattern 5: Overpromising in the Response

Some authors promise to make changes in the response letter but do not actually make the changes in the manuscript. This is a serious error. The editor will check the manuscript against the response letter, and any discrepancy can damage your credibility.

Welfare and Safety Context in the Peer Review Process

The peer review process is designed to protect the integrity of the research record. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe the responsibilities of authors, reviewers, and editors in this process. When you respond to reviewers, you are participating in a system that is intended to improve the quality of published research.

The EQUATOR Network provides reporting guidelines that help authors and reviewers communicate about the completeness of a manuscript. When you use these guidelines, you reduce the risk of misunderstandings and you make the review process more efficient.

The NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy describes expectations for data sharing in NIH-funded research. If a reviewer asks you to share data or to describe your data management plan, you should consider whether the request aligns with these expectations.

Limitations and Professional Escalation Criteria

Limitations of the Decision Tree

The decision tree is a guide, not a rule. Some reviewer comments will not fit neatly into the categories. You must use your judgment to determine the best response. The tree is also limited by the information you have. You may not know whether a request is feasible until you attempt to fulfill it.

When to Escalate to the Editor

You should escalate to the editor when you believe that a reviewer has made a request that is not scientifically valid or that is not feasible. The editor is the final decision maker in the review process. You can explain your position in the response letter, and the editor will decide whether to accept your position or the reviewer's position.

You should also escalate to the editor if you believe that a reviewer has made a request that is not appropriate for the manuscript. For example, a reviewer might ask you to cite a specific paper that is not relevant to your study. You can contest this request and explain why the citation is not appropriate.

When to Seek Institutional Support

If you believe that a reviewer request raises a concern about research integrity, you should contact your institution's research integrity office. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe the responsibilities of institutions in investigating allegations of misconduct. Your institution can provide guidance on how to respond.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do I decide whether to contest a reviewer's request?

Use the three criteria of scientific validity, feasibility, and impact. If the request is not scientifically valid, contest it with evidence. If it is valid but not feasible, contest it with a constraint explanation. If it is valid and feasible but does not improve the manuscript, contest it with a justification. If it is valid, feasible, and improves the manuscript, concede.

What should I do if a reviewer asks for an analysis that my data cannot support?

Explain the limitation in your response letter. Describe the data you have, the analysis that would be required, and why the analysis cannot be performed. Offer an alternative analysis if one is available. The National Library of Medicine Research Methods Resources can help you identify alternative methods.

How do I respond to a reviewer who has misunderstood my study?

Explain the misunderstanding in your response letter. Point to the specific section of the manuscript that addresses the reviewer's concern. If the manuscript is not clear, revise the manuscript to make the point more explicit. The EQUATOR Network can help you identify reporting standards that improve clarity.

Can I contest a reviewer request without being rude?

Yes. A professional response letter states your position clearly and provides evidence. It does not use personal language or attack the reviewer. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe the importance of respectful communication in peer review.

What if the editor disagrees with my decision to contest a point?

The editor has the final authority in the peer review process. If the editor requires the change, you should make the change or explain why you cannot. If you believe the editor's decision is wrong, you can appeal to the editor in writing. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe the appeals process.

How do I handle a reviewer request that is not feasible within the revision deadline?

Explain the time constraint in your response letter. Describe the work that would be required and the time needed to complete it. Ask the editor for an extension if you need more time. The NIH Grants and Funding pages describe how research projects are planned and managed, which can help you explain the time constraints.

Should I concede to a reviewer request if I disagree with it?

Only if the request is valid, feasible, and improves the manuscript. If you disagree with the request but it meets these criteria, you should concede. If the request does not meet these criteria, you should contest it with evidence.

How do I write a response letter that is clear and effective?

Structure the letter by reviewer and by comment. For each comment, state whether you made a change or did not make a change. Provide the specific reason for your decision. Use the EQUATOR Network to ensure that your manuscript is consistent with reporting guidelines.

Using the Evidence

Related Articles

• Phylogenetic Tree Dna Sequence
• Welch's t-Test: When and How to Use It
• Careers in Agriculture: A Decision Framework for Choosing Your Path
• Bonferroni Correction for Multiple Comparisons: When and How to Use It
• Data Management Platform: What It Is and How to Choose One

References and Further Reading

• Research Methods Resources. National Library of Medicine.
• EQUATOR Network. EQUATOR Network.
• Core Practices. Committee on Publication Ethics.
• NIH Grants and Funding. National Institutes of Health.
• ORCID for Researchers. ORCID.
• Data Management and Sharing Policy. National Institutes of Health.
• NCBI Literature Resources. National Center for Biotechnology Information.
• PubMed. National Library of Medicine.

This article is educational and does not replace institutional policy, professional advice, or applicable safety and regulatory requirements.