Split Decision in Peer Review
|

Split Decision in Peer Review (One Reviewer Accepts, One Rejects)

ByYong-hwa (용화)

In the CrossLink Studies (CLS) editorial workflow, it is common for manuscripts to receive conflicting reviewer recommendations, where one reviewer recommends acceptance and another recommends rejection. CLS follows a structured and editorially independent approach to resolve such cases.

What Happens in a Split Decision?

CLS requires at least two independent reviewer reports, but the final decision is not a simple majority vote. Instead, the academic editor makes the final decision after carefully evaluating:

  • The quality and depth of reviewer comments,
  • The scientific merit and contribution of the manuscript,
  • The author’s response to reviewer feedback (if applicable).

Possible Editorial Actions

When one reviewer accepts and another rejects, the editor may:

Request a Third Review (Tie-breaker)

  • A new independent reviewer is invited to provide an additional evaluation.
  • This is a common practice when reviewer opinions strongly conflict.

Issue Major Revision Decision

  • If the manuscript shows potential but has critical weaknesses, authors are asked to revise.
  • Authors must respond thoroughly to both reviewers, especially the rejecting reviewer.

Make an Editorial Judgment

  • The editor may side with the more scientifically justified review, not necessarily the more positive one.
  • Reviewer recommendations are advisory, not binding.

Reject the Manuscript

  • If the rejecting review identifies fundamental flaws (methodology, novelty, ethics), the manuscript may be rejected despite one acceptance.

Accept with Revisions (Rare but Possible)

  • If the rejecting review is weak, biased, or less substantiated, the editor may proceed with acceptance after revision.

Final Decision Principle

At CLS, the editor’s independent evaluation governs the outcome, not reviewer consensus. The decision is based on:

  • Scientific rigor
  • Relevance to the journal scope
  • Strength of evidence and methodology
  • Constructiveness and validity of reviewer arguments

Practical Insight for Authors

In split decisions, authors should:

  • Address all critical concerns raised by the rejecting reviewer in detail.
  • Provide clear, evidence-based rebuttals.
  • Strengthen methodology, clarity, and justification.

A well-argued revision often converts a split decision into major revision → acceptance.

A split decision (one accept, one reject) does not determine the final outcome. At CLS, the academic editor evaluates the full context and may request additional reviews, revisions, or make an independent judgment. The final decision is therefore editor-driven, evidence-based, and quality-focused.
Share this:

Similar Posts