From an intent-semantic perspective, this paper analyzes data from a decade of peer review reports of papers published in the eLife journal, conducting a profiling analysis of the interactive behaviors of peer review subjects from three dimensions: intent-semantic distribution, interaction intensity, and interactional relationships. The findings reveal that in terms of intent-semantic distribution, expert reviews are dominated by directive intents, while author responses are dominated by executive intents, showing a correspondence between the two. In terms of interaction intensity, authors' response strategies exhibit motivation-driven differences in intensity: they not only produce longer response texts but also adopt more diverse intent-semantic combination strategies. In terms of interactional relationships, experts and authors show high consistency in the "directive-executive" intent dimension. Conflicting interactions mainly arise when expert directives exceed the scope preset by authors or encounter constraints such as data or technical limitations. Through further analysis of typical cases, it is found that authors mainly adopt two response strategies in conflicts: negotiated dominance and confrontational persistence.