Create advanced Works with: Any AI

Rebuttal Strategy for Conflicting Reviewers

Table output Has example

Respond when reviewers disagree.

The Open buttons send the prompt text as currently shown below to that site only when you click. Fill in the placeholders first.

[VERIFY] is an editorial flag, not a blank to fill. Wherever the prompt shows [VERIFY], check that item against a reliable source before you use it.

Plan a response to reviewers who disagree. Reviewer comments in conflict: [CONFLICTING_COMMENTS]. My manuscript's position and evidence: [POSITION_EVIDENCE]. The editor's instructions: [EDITOR_INSTRUCTIONS].

Map the conflicts in a table: Reviewer A says | Reviewer B says | Underlying concern | Options | Recommended approach. Suggest how to explain the choice to the editor transparently and respectfully, how to adjust the manuscript, and how to provide evidence. Draft response paragraphs of 100 words for two conflicts and a covering note to the editor. Avoid defensiveness. Remind me that the editor decides and to follow the journal's instructions [VERIFY].

Also add a template for a polite request to the editor for guidance when reviewers cannot both be satisfied, and a checklist to confirm that every comment has a response.

Add a calm-writing rule: draft the response, wait a day, and then remove any wording that sounds defensive, replacing it with evidence and thanks.

Fill in before use

Optional: type your details and the prompt above updates. Nothing is saved or sent.

Replace each bracketed placeholder with your own details, then paste into Any AI or another assistant.

Conflict map (invented)
Reviewer A says | Reviewer B says | Underlying concern | Recommended approach
Shorten the discussion | Expand the discussion of limitations | Clarity and honesty | Cut repetition; add a limitations paragraph
Remove Figure 3 | Keep Figure 3 | Evidence visibility | Keep, simplify, add a clearer caption
Cover note (90 words): 'Reviewers differ on the discussion length. We shortened repetitive passages and expanded the limitations paragraph, as outlined below.'
Timeline: draft responses in week one, co-author review in week two, resubmit before the journal's deadline [VERIFY]; keep a response checklist for every comment.

• research