publications - How to effectively address conflicting suggestions from reviewers

A bit of background, I am doing research in atmospheric physics and detection systems

Recently, I received a paper submission back with revisions suggested by a couple of reviewers. For the most part, the revisions were definitely constructive, justified and most importantly, helpful.

That is, except on one particular crucial aspect of the paper where both reviewers made suggestions, that they labelled as critical for the paper's success. However, the suggestions were directly opposite. i.e. Both suggestions are mutually exclusive, but equally feasible.

What is an effective means to address this conflict?

I have spoken to my academic supervisor and he is not sure how to proceed either and we have double checked and both suggested paths are feasible.

Answer

In my capacity as editor for a journal, I see this quite frequently. I think it is a pity that you are left on your own to try to resolve the problem. An editor should provide some indication of possible solutions in tricky situations like this. So my first advice is to contact the editor and briefly explain the dilemma and ask for some advise on how to proceed. If you can, you should also provide your opinion on what you think is reasonable. After all, you have made your study and knows its strengths and weaknesses better than most.

In some cases, I have experienced how authors have used conflicting reviews to swing their paper in one or the other direction. This is certainly also possible since the reviews, and this is important, constitute peer's views and opinions, not an absolute and definitive truth to be followed.

Lacking the necessary insight into the details of your work and the issue at hand, I would also add the following. If you think you can bring up the conflicting views in the discussion, you may perhaps add both to your paper and simply arrive at a conclusion that the jury might still be out concerning the burning issue. I realize this may not be applicable in your case, but could be one way to acknowledge the existence of several, seemingly valid views.