How do you make peer review a constructive collaboration?

In addition to these crucial points, it's essential to approach peer review as an opportunity for growth and collaboration. When you submit your draft, not only are you presenting your best work to your peers, but you're also inviting constructive feedback that can elevate your writing and thinking. Remember, peer reviewers can provide valuable insights, catch errors you might have missed, and offer fresh perspectives on your ideas. Embrace their input as a chance to refine and strengthen your work. This collaborative approach not only improves the quality of your writing but also fosters a supportive academic or professional community where knowledge and expertise can flourish.

As an academic editor, the biggest mistake I find my clients make is viewing the first submission to the journal as a "draft." The mere perception affects how seriously they follow the formatting guidelines and how they present their arguments. Cover letters are another neglected segment of one's submission. They play a pivotal role in showing one's understanding of one's paper and the target journal, and should be given special attention. In summary, paying attention to the minutest details in academic writing often leads to the best results.

If we try to bring everything together, there are certain pointers that we can keep in focus while having peer reviews. We need to have a fair analysis of the content. Having peer reviewers that have relevance to the topic is integral, so as to get objective and relevant review that has solid accountability. There is always a great need and appreciation for timelines along with helpful and constructive guidance. This helps to further a healthy and mutually beneficial environment!

Spoiler Alert??! Peer review is in fact theoretically a good idea. It makes sense to have like minded, experts, active researchers, senior academics who have a good contextual understanding of the field to provide not just constructive feedback but also mechanisms to enhance the field more. The reality is like all human processes we are entangled with bias. I know in science, medicine and engineering we like to think ourselves as being open minded and unbiased, but there is always a reviewer who didn’t read the memo! More needs to be done to give active training on how to review effectively plus have a wider and more diverse reviewer pool with editors having the confidence to reach a wider pool of the field. Till then we are stuck.

Prepare yourself for the classics, such as a person of terrible articulation and horrendous spelling criticizing your English. Further prepare yourself for bitter emotions, and the case of people sometimes needing to feel superior via undue hate on other people's work. This doesn't happen all the time of course, but it could happen, and I believe preparing yourself for the worst is important when entering a peer review progress. Prepare your draft until you are satisfied, and from there it's all psychological and emotional - accept that peer review has more power than you, and you need to have a constructive attitude about it all.

I would not necessarily go for experts in your field, or big names in your field, but the people you'd like to read the article - that is to say, the people that you imagine could benefit from it. That is your target demographic, your closest peers aren't necessarily (they could be coincidentally, but not generally). That being said, you should also prepare yourself for very little influence in the selection of peer reviewers.

This absolutely depends on the field and the type of publication. You may not always have the luxury of choosing your reviewer. In such cases, however, you can often indicate people who you think should be excluded from the review process. This would normally be limited to rivals or people with conflicts of interest. Knowing who to exclude is perhaps more important than knowing who you would like to include.

As someone who has edited and reviewed many papers, I have found that the best reviewers are the ones who are the most invested. I try to select two kinds: Reviewer 1: who will focus on building you up because they are of the same "cloth"- so someone who is cited frequently in the paper. Reviewer 2: someone who has shown significant disagreement with reviewer 1 in their past approaches, or uses a different approach to address the same question. Remember: peer review includes the editor, who you must also convince. If the peer reviewers don't highlight issues that editor is already thinking, then it may go for more peer review or rejected!

Embracing constructive criticism through peer review is an essential part of scholarly writing. This process, approached with an open mind and a readiness to refine, allows authors to identify and address potential weaknesses in their work, improving its clarity, coherence, and completeness. While some feedback might be challenging to receive, it is essential to focus on the substance of the critique rather than taking it personally. Engage in a respectful dialogue with your peer reviewers, asking for clarification when necessary and incorporating their suggestions when appropriate.

It is always nice to have a structured peer-review report. So the report would have subheadings that match the ones in the paper you're reviewing. You list your comments under each subheading. By organizing the peer-review report in this way, the author knows where to look and it would be easier for them to fix.

It's important to remember that when offering peer-review, you have volunteered to offer help and guidance to your colleagues. In my experience in academic publishing and editorial work, some reviewers unfortunately tend to use the review process either as a self-promotion opportunity or as an exercise in pointing out all the weaknesses of a manuscript. Be kind. Remember that we rise by lifting others and extend this to your feedback. Ask yourself: what changes should the author(s) apply to ensure that this would be a manuscript you would want to cite? And inform the author(s) in a positive way.

Being constructive means also means also being very clear. For peer reviewers, I would strongly suggest being concise to assist in this. To do this, I start by writing a front heavy summary- this is the stuff I like, this is the most important stuff that needs to be improved. Then, I structure my review on structural issues vs empirical issues. I try to be very specific, with directions on what one could do instead. I also avoid negative language. It's always better to assume that someone is doing their best, or doesn't have a specific resource. For example, if a key paper is missing, it may be that they don't have access. Act as all your peer reviews are public; the industry is headed in that direction anyway!

It is possible to review in a way that is both direct and polite. A long time ago, I noticed that my communications with clients were sometimes getting in the way of achieving desired outcomes. A good introduction can set the tone of the review and introduce politeness. A good closing remark will reinforce how the author perceives all of the previous comments and criticisms. With the specific comments, be absolutely clear about what you want to say. Be direct without being blunt. When we dance around the criticisms too much, we chip away at the impact. I tend to opt for active verb forms over passive verb forms for this type of writing. Finally, be as concrete as you can, and when provide examples when it is feasible to do so.

Receiving feedback is an art. If your feedback is positive, well done! Celebrate your success! If it's not as positive, well done! You are one step closer to success! Take a break and come back to your feedback. If you found the feedback you received to be harsh (or even insulting), remember that statistically, you are likely to receive feedback from someone who is not writing in their native language, or who comes from a different culture. They probably didn't mean to upset you. You do not need to agree with the reviewer. You have every right to disagree and to respond to it. Most importantly, use it as a genuine opportunity for improvement. Evaluate the issues raised by the reviewers, and see how you can use them to your benefit

It is important to remember that the purpose of a peer review is to improve your presentation of your work and (where applicable) to challenge your argumentation where it is not clear or not well supported. Be humble. If something wasn’t clear to a reviewer, you can make it clearer. If you think what you wrote was obvious, focus on ensuring your readers can understand the assumptions you rely on. Pick your battles. A tangential argument with a hole in it is something that you could drop. A core argument that you think a reviewer has misunderstood is an opportunity for you to re-state it and provide further theoretical or empirical grounding.

I often tell my students that providing feedback is challenging, yet receiving feedback can be even more so. There are many factors involved in receiving feedback gracefully: your self-esteem levels, a sincere desire to grow and improve, tolerance and acceptance of outside opinion. As a student at the University of Oxford, I had frequent opportunities to receive feedback from my peers, and the most valuable lesson learnt was that feedback is your most valuable tool to get your work to the highest standards before it reaches a wider audience. Work with your feedback, incorporate it into your piece, and consider the viewpoint offered even if you don't agree with it. You'll be surprised at the possibilities you'll discover in the process.

Prepare yourself for the classics, such as a person of terrible articulation and horrendous spelling criticizing your English. Further prepare yourself for bitter emotions, and the case of people sometimes needing to feel superior via undue hate on other people's work. This doesn't happen all the time of course, but it could happen, and I believe preparing yourself for the worst is important when entering a peer review progress. Prepare your draft until you are satisfied, and from there it's all psychological and emotional - accept that peer review has more power than you, and you need to have a constructive attitude about it all.

Divorce yourself from what you are reading as much as you can. It can feel great to receive good feedback and devastating to receive negative feedback. These emotional responses can interfere with a person's ability to properly process the other comments in the review. Criticism in this process offers a valuable last chance to reinforce the work.

We are all proud of our manuscripts - as we should. However, editing is an equal contributor to a good paper, just like writing is. The best advice I ever got was "edit ruthlessly". If you agree with the reviewers, don't be afraid to delete paragraphs, to reorder sentences and add new ones! Make sure though that you remain faithful to your voice and purpose.

Remember, publishing your work puts you and your work in conversation with your readers, your discipline, and broader peer and professional networks. Write and revise your writing with those various conversations in mind. Your reviewers will have alerted you to some aspects of those conversations, but not all. Think conversationally about your various categories of reader.

Follow-up in peer review ensures continuous improvement and accountability. It allows academicians to clarify doubts, discuss revisions, and track the implementation of feedback. For instance, an academician might follow up with a reviewer to discuss the feasibility of a suggested methodological change. In my experience, such follow-ups can lead to deeper understanding and refined research. They also strengthen professional relationships by showing commitment to the collaborative process. Regular follow-up meetings or correspondence can transform peer review from a one-time assessment into an ongoing dialogue, enhancing the quality and integrity of academic work.

I agree, the peer review process is not just a one-way street. It’s an opportunity for ongoing collaboration and gratitude, where authors and reviewers build relationships, exchange feedback, and foster a culture of continuous improvement in research and writing.

The process is subjective, not objective. It's a simple truth I don't have to tell you, but I will remind you to really accept that fact.

Yes, it’s a subjective process. However, if one person (reviewer) didn’t understand you the way you intended, don’t shrug it off as just their subjective reading. Treat it as a window onto ways you could communicate your ideas better. And sometimes, there’s a more objective message, like maybe your work is not a good match for that journal or publisher.