Likewise, a recommendation for rejection need not be followed if, in the Editor's opinion, the rejection stems from a faulty understanding of the paper. The Editor has the option of sending a paper to additional referees who comment on the paper as well as on the original referees' reports to provide additional information for the interpretation of a set of mixed reviews. When there is doubt or disagreement among the referees, Editors may choose a conservative course and recommend revisions of the paper, followed by a second review possibly involving additional referees, in order to remove problems in the paper that have led to ambiguous interpretations and negative comments. In such a case, the author shall be given the opportunity to prepare a suitably worded rebuttal to the referees' criticism where the author believes it is unfounded and to submit the rebuttal to the Editor. Technical disagreements often occur in such instances because the manuscript is interpreted differently by the referee than is the intended interpretation of the author.
Rebuttals can correct such erroneous interpretations.
In any case, the Editor forwards the rebuttals to the referees for their comments, acting as an intermediary to continue to preserve the referees' anonymity. The referees return their recommendations if the argument put forth is persuasive. On the other hand, the referee is free to counter the rebuttal of the author. However the referee chooses to act, he or she furnishes additional information to the Editor which, together with the rebuttal of the author, provides the Editor with additional information on which to base a decision. The Editor may seek advice from additional referees during such an exchange.