How do you manage conflicting feedback from different reviewers on your research work?

Navigating the waters of research feedback can be as daunting as the research itself. When you receive conflicting feedback from different reviewers, it can be unclear which direction to take your work. Each reviewer brings their own expertise and perspective, which can lead to diverse opinions on your research's methodology, analysis, or conclusions. The challenge lies in balancing these differing viewpoints to refine your work without compromising its integrity. Understanding how to manage and synthesize conflicting feedback is a crucial skill in research management that can significantly enhance the quality and impact of your research.

1 Acknowledge Views

When faced with conflicting feedback, your first step is to acknowledge each reviewer's perspective. This doesn't mean you have to agree with all the points made, but it's important to understand where each reviewer is coming from. Consider the background and expertise of each reviewer, as this might influence their feedback. By recognizing their viewpoints, you can begin to dissect the feedback and identify areas of common concern, which could be indicative of fundamental issues in your research that need addressing. Acknowledgement also sets a respectful tone for any future dialogue you might have with the reviewers.

Add your perspective

Juan Mora Delgado

Doctor en Ciencias de la Salud | Especialista en Medicina Interna | Inteligencia Artificial | Investigación Clínica | Docencia Sanitaria
Report contribution
Aquí conviene realizar un enfoque sistemático, similar al método de Eisenhardt, que va a fortalecer la calidad y coherencia de tu investigación. Lidiar con comentarios contradictorios de revisores puede mejorar tu investigación. Porque puede que no lo sean. Primero, clasifica los comentarios por temas y diferencia entre sugerencias menores y críticas sustantivas. Luego, comprende las perspectivas de los revisores, buscando puntos de consenso. Prioriza los comentarios importantes y busca compromisos cuando sean opuestos, justificando tus elecciones. Documenta los cambios y responde profesionalmente. Consulta con mentores para obtener nuevas perspectivas. Realiza revisiones iterativas y revisa tu trabajo antes de reenviarlo.

Translated

Like

2 Analyze Critiques

Once you've acknowledged the feedback, the next step is to thoroughly analyze each critique. Look for the underlying concerns behind the reviewers' comments. Are they questioning your methodology, the robustness of your data, or the implications of your findings? Sometimes, what seems like conflicting advice can actually be pointing towards a similar underlying issue from different angles. By dissecting the feedback to its core components, you can often find a common thread that helps you understand the fundamental aspects of your research that may need improvement or further clarification.

Add your perspective

3 Prioritize Feedback

After dissecting the critiques, prioritize the feedback based on its relevance and impact on your research. Not all feedback will be equally important; some may be critical for the integrity of your work, while other comments may be more subjective or less crucial. Determine which suggestions provide the most significant benefits to your research and which align with your research goals. Prioritizing allows you to focus on making changes that will have the most substantial positive effect on the quality and validity of your research outcomes.

Add your perspective

Mohammad Hossein Khosravi

Medtech & Medical Devices | Digital Health | AI in Healthcare | Neuroscientist | Concussion & Brain Health | Clinical Trials & Regulatory
Report contribution
One of the key strategies I use in these situations is to first align with the point of view that matches my research goals and the aim of the study. I apply the changes requested by the reviewer and provide feedback on comments I do not agree with, taking the reviewer's concerns into account. Then, I respond to the reviewer with conflicting comments by referring to the other reviewer's comments and my feedback on them. This approach works in most cases. It should be noted that none of the reviewers' concerns should be ignored or downplayed.

Like

4 Seek Clarification

If certain aspects of the feedback are unclear or seem contradictory, don't hesitate to seek clarification from the reviewers. Most reviewers are willing to elaborate on their comments if asked. This step is crucial, as it can help you understand the rationale behind their suggestions and how they might envision their feedback being implemented in your research. Clear communication can resolve misunderstandings and provide you with a more precise direction for addressing the feedback.

Add your perspective

5 Integrate Insights

With a clear understanding of the feedback and its implications, the next step is to integrate these insights into your research. This doesn't mean implementing every single suggestion, but rather synthesizing the feedback to improve your work cohesively. Sometimes this may involve finding a middle ground between conflicting suggestions or coming up with a novel approach that addresses the concerns of multiple reviewers. The goal is to enhance your research by incorporating the feedback in a way that strengthens your arguments and supports your findings.

Add your perspective

6 Document Changes

Finally, it's important to document the changes you've made in response to the feedback. This not only helps you keep track of the revisions but also provides transparency for those who will review your work in the future. Explain how you addressed each significant piece of feedback in your revised manuscript or project documentation. This documentation demonstrates that you've taken the feedback seriously and have made thoughtful changes to improve your research, which can be particularly important if your work undergoes further review or is resubmitted for publication.

Add your perspective

Juan Mora Delgado

Doctor en Ciencias de la Salud | Especialista en Medicina Interna | Inteligencia Artificial | Investigación Clínica | Docencia Sanitaria
Report contribution
Para este paso te recomiendo utilizar herramientas con funciones de "Track Changes" que permiten ver y documentar cada modificación. La mayoría se integran en procesadores. Otra opción es usar un script en Python para comparar dos textos y generar un informe de las diferencias: Algo así como: from difflib import unified_diff def generate_diff_report(file1, file2, output_file): with open(file1, 'r') as f1, open(file2, 'r') as f2: text1 = f1.readlines() text2 = f2.readlines() diff = unified_diff(text1, text2, fromfile=file1, tofile=file2) with open(output_file, 'w') as output: output.writelines(diff) # Uso: generate_diff_report('version_inicial.txt', 'version_modificada.txt', 'reporte_de_cambios.txt')

Translated

Like

How do you manage conflicting feedback from different reviewers on your research work?

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 Acknowledge Views

2 Analyze Critiques

3 Prioritize Feedback

4 Seek Clarification

5 Integrate Insights

6 Document Changes

Research Management

Rate this article

Thanks for your feedback

More articles on Research Management

More relevant reading