Here's how you can give effective feedback in a research context without making common mistakes.

When the aim and objectives of the study is clearly stated, stick to the specific rules of the research, adhering to the design and the practical methods of conducting the project, this will ensure that the intended outcomes are achieved. From here it is easy to report the findings at ease with minimum set back.

Effective feedback in epidemiological research entails offering clear and constructive comments on study design, data analysis, interpretation of results, and implications for public health. Avoid pitfalls like vague critiques, overlooking methodological strengths, using overly technical jargon, or dismissing alternative perspectives without consideration. Acknowledging the complexity of epidemiological research and encouraging open dialogue fosters growth and rigor in scientific inquiry.

Providing effective feedback in a research context requires clarity, sensitivity, and a structured approach to ensure it is constructive and beneficial. The first step is to clarify the research goals by thoroughly understanding the objectives, hypotheses, and intended outcomes. Engaging with the researcher to articulate these goals ensures feedback is relevant and focused, helping to align suggestions with the research's primary aims. Specific and concrete feedback is crucial. Avoid vague comments like "this needs improvement" and instead offer detailed guidance on specific areas, such as methodology or data analysis. Providing examples can enhance understanding and make your feedback actionable.

No contexto de pesquisa, é importante definir um foco principal, para n?o fugir do objetivo do trabalho. Nesse sentido, dar feedbacks positivos, que norteiem essa pesquisa e mantenham o desejo de explorar o assunto, é fundamental. Além disso, valorizar os avan?os obtidos no trabalho ajuda a manter o senso de criatividade e inova??o.

Effective research feedback fosters growth. Key strategies include: Be Specific: Offer clear, detailed feedback. Example: Suggest detailing the chosen method in the statistical analysis instead of calling it weak. Focus on Work, Not Person: Address the work, not the individual. Example: Recommend clearer graphs rather than questioning their ability. Offer Solutions: Provide actionable advice. Example: Suggest a systematic review to strengthen the literature base. Use Sandwich Technique: Start with positive feedback, offer constructive criticism, and end with encouragement. Be Timely: Provide feedback promptly to keep it relevant. Be Empathetic: Acknowledge challenges and suggest improvements respectfully.

The specificity should include clear actionables and inputs that are aligned to objectives. Also periodic reviews and clarifications are important to ensure that the teams works in minimum ambiguity.

In parallel to be specific one can also provide references to better describe the point of view. lots of debates might never end due to the lack of references and systematization of ones arguments. The idea should be to build and not to destroy, thus references exchange can be a great way to go in that direction.

Para evitar las ambigüedades y malas interpretaciones en la retroalimentación, es importante: Precisar el uso de los conceptos, mediante: 1. Invitando a reflexionar desde que teoría, autor/a y enfoque el investigador/a está utilizando un concepto concreto. 2. Invitando a fundamentar un concepto cuya aplicación puede ser débil, con los datos extraídos de la realidad que se estudia. Esto ayuda a eliminar el extravío en que no pocas veces suelen caer quienes inician en la investigación.

When giving feedback of any kind, be specific about it. Instead of saying "This section is unclear", specify what about that section is unclear. Really think about what you want to say before you actually deliver the feedback. Make it thoughtful and genuine-- this will show the person on the receiving end that you actually took the time to engage with their work and that you respect their efforts.

The sandwich method of feedback is usually welcoming. Hearing positive feedback first is reassuring. Them suggestions on how to address the challenges helps to provide a direction on how to fix the problem.

A researcher usually spends a lot of time and focus on his/her research. Thus it is important to consider the effort and time that the researcher has put in while providing feedback. While the sandwich method of feedback is usually welcoming, trying to structure negative feedback or criticism in the form of questions or queries can be a good idea to encourage the researcher towards considering a particular aspect of research. Iliciting the curiosity by asking questions might work better than just providing outright negative feedback and demotivating the researcher.

A suggestion that can go hand-in-hand with the balance critique: be professional and don't let it be personal. positive and negative feedback are always possible, however one should also take into account that critique should be delivered in a professional manner, and not personal.

It takes time, energy, and commitment to conduct research. At the point of review, the comment any researcher would not expect rubbishes the paper rather than being constructive. It is demoralizing and could dampen morale, especially of young researchers. As a reviewer, embrace the sandwich approach and make your feedback constructive without losing sight of the journal focus and the quality of the paper being reviewed.

The sandwich technique is a great way of giving feedback. Start off with something good the person has done. Then follow up with the area that could be improved, the rationale behind it, and perhaps suggestions to make it better. End off on a positive note by praising their efforts and wishing them the best as they make their revisions, and assuring them that if they need any help, you will be there to guide them.

When offering research feedback, ensure your suggestions align with the study's objectives by first understanding the research goals. Provide specific, actionable solutions rather than vague comments. For instance, if the methodology needs refinement, recommend a more appropriate approach and explain its advantages. Use concrete examples to illustrate your points, aiding the researcher in understanding and implementing the changes. Encourage exploring alternative techniques or perspectives that align with the research goals.This approach helps the researcher make meaningful improvements and advance their work effectively, enhancing the overall quality and impact of their research.

When giving feedback, those on the receiving end may ask for solutions on how to improve their work. If not, it is great to provide suggestions anyway-- this will provide the person some clear direction on how to improve their work.

Turn the feedback into a conversation. Instead of just saying "You have to improve this" and leaving it at that, ask for their input as well. You could ask: "Do you agree with me?", "What are your thoughts on this?", and "What ideas do you have in mind"? That way, you can bounce ideas off of each other and turn feedback into a collaborative effort.

When providing research feedback, focus on actionable suggestions and follow up to ensure clarity and implementation. Start by understanding the research goals to align your feedback appropriately. Offer specific solutions, such as suggesting an improved methodology and explaining its benefits. Use examples to aid understanding. Encourage exploring alternative techniques relevant to the research objectives. Importantly, follow up with the researcher to discuss your feedback in detail and address any questions. This ongoing support helps the researcher effectively apply the suggestions, leading to meaningful improvements and enhanced research quality.

Consider it a privilege when you get the chance to critique someone else’s work. Be concise and clear about what changes will improve the draft. Motivate the researcher to close the loop on unanswered questions, and suggest what to work on next. Your critique is better received if you can show that you have understood the approach,and contemplate to what extent the research objectives were met.