Editing literary translations is a common practice in Iranian publishing houses, involving multiple actors whose interactions often give rise to disagreements. As a result, mechanisms for resolving disputes become necessary, and certain actors may exercise greater authority in decision-making processes. However, the power relations among those involved in the editing of literary translations remain insufficiently understood. To address this gap, the present study conducted interviews with 57 actors engaged in the editing process of literary translations. Drawing on actor-network theory and employing a qualitative thematic analysis approach, the interview data were examined to explore patterns of conflict resolution and authority. The findings revealed a range of conflict resolution practices, from direct bilateral negotiations among actors to the intervention of publishers. The publisher emerged as the actor with the highest decision-making authority, followed by the translator and the editor. In most cases, authority structures were predetermined, although in some instances authority remained undefined or developed during the process. The study also identified several recurring areas of disagreement, particularly concerning lexical choices and adherence to style guides. Additional sources of conflict included stylistic preferences, the use of colloquial language, title translation, fees and deadlines, censorship, and the inclusion of footnotes.