Peer Review: How to Write Thoughtful Reader Reports (that won’t make authors cry)
One thing that has been interesting about being a developmental editor is that I have read a lot of peer review reader reports. Often my clients ask me to read them, along with the accompanying article or book manuscript, to help them figure out a pathway for revision. While many (most!) of these reports have been extremely useful to my clients, some have been confusing, overwhelming, opaque, or downright hurtful.
So here is some guidance on how we can be better and more helpful peer reviewers. Note that in this post I am focusing on things that are helpful for authors themselves. These might differ from what publishers are looking for in peer reviews (watch for a blog on that soon or check out the Association of University Press’s Best Practices for Peer Review).
First, here’s a quick overview of the peer review process for those of you who aren’t familiar with it. Peer review is important because it helps university presses and journals work to ensure high standards of publication. The process involves having scholars comment on manuscripts with the aim of making them stronger. These peer reviewers also advise the press as to whether it should publish the book manuscript or article. Such advice comes with gradations. While reviewers can encourage a press to outright reject or accept a manuscript, often they will suggest “revise and resubmit,” meaning that an author should work more on the piece and then send it back to the press (at which stage it may be reviewed again). They write up their feedback in reader reports which are usually shared with the author by the press’s editor. Peer review is generally double blind, meaning that the reviewers and the authors do not know each other’s identities (note this is often different for book manuscripts, when the reviewers usually are told the identity of the author).
How can you make your reader reports more useful to authors? Here are some guidelines.
Focus on the big picture. This isn’t to say that it isn’t important to point out smaller problems in a manuscript, but some peer reviewers get stuck in the weeds, listing scores of items that authors might revise. This can leave authors feeling overwhelmed and discouraged. It can also make it challenging for authors and editors to identify reviewers’ main suggestions. So as you read, think about the major flaws in the piece and/or the areas that you think would most improve it if they were revised. (Hint, often the major flaws relate to argument, structure, and audience!). In your report, highlight these areas. Framing sentences are helpful: “I found three major areas that would benefit from revision in this piece. They include clarifying the argument, reworking the structure to make the piece flow more clearly, and adding some vivid examples to help bring this interesting example to life for the reader.” Then you can explain your suggestions more thoroughly. This approach will also make it more likely that your suggestions will be incorporated into the revised piece since the author and her editor can easily follow them. You can list additional, less urgent suggestions at the end.
Explain your feedback. It’s not uncommon to see sentences like this in reader reports: “Your analysis of [insert thing here!] was confusing.” That is helpful information to know, but unless you say why it was confusing, it may be very difficult for the person who wrote this confusing section to figure out why it is unclear to others. So please explain your feedback and be specific. You might say something like, “Your analysis of [insert thing here!] was confusing because the chronology seemed off. You started discussing the figure’s later life, but then jumped to an earlier period without much explanation or transition.” One of the frustrating aspects for authors is that since peer review is usually blind authors can’t (generally) ask the reviewer for clarification. So work to ensure your reports contain the knowledge authors need to effectively make use of your suggestions.
Be kind and encouraging. When you read a manuscript, remember that this is a draft. Remember that it’s a draft that someone (presumably) worked very hard on and cares about deeply. Remember that it’s a draft that the author very likely expects to revise and that they hope to get useful guidance on. So watch your tone. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t be critical (or that you shouldn’t reject work that you don’t feel is worthy of publication), but try to do this thoughtfully and professionally. This will actually help the author be more open to your suggestions and feedback and will make it more likely that they will incorporate them. After you write your report, set it aside for a day or two and then go back and reread it paying attention to tone. Imagine that the author is a respected colleague and adopt that tone throughout your piece.
Point out the strengths of the piece. Since peer reviews are, by nature, meant to lead to revision, sometimes reviewers forget that commenting on positive aspects of the work can also be extremely valuable to authors. This helps them identify what is strong about their manuscripts and helps ensure that they retain those elements and perhaps even expand on them. It also shows that you have read the piece carefully and helps authors be more receptive to your comments.
Think about length. In general, my experience is that really short or really long reader reports are not helpful. The really short ones (say one page) generally don’t have enough helpful information for the press to judge the quality of the work or for the author to use the information to craft meaningful revisions. But extremely long peer reviews (I’ve seen upwards of 20 single-spaced pages!) can be overwhelming for authors (and editors) and can make it difficult for them to extract the main ideas. So try for something in the middle, a few pages for articles and a bit longer than that for books. If you’re writing more than ten pages for a book manuscript, I would review your work and see if there are areas where you could trim.
Remember this isn’t the book you would write. It’s not uncommon for large portions of reader reports to read as if the writer is wagging their finger and suggesting, “I work on a similar topic and I would have done this differently.” Of course they would have! So if you find yourself feeling this way, step back and remind yourself that this is someone else’s work. You are judging them based on how well they succeed at the mission they set out upon and its value to the scholarly community. If you feel yourself getting angry that their approach is different from what yours would have been, consider taking a couple of days away from the manuscript until you can judge it with a fresh perspective.
Be timely. Peer review has always taken awhile, but this has been exacerbated in recent years by Covid and scholars’ increasing workloads. So before you agree to complete a peer review, reflect on whether you can actually take it on. If you are too busy, it’s ok to say no (or, really, it’s ok to say no for any reason). Since some scholars are on tight timelines for getting publications out (often related to tenure processes), having to wait too long for the peer review process to be completed can be damaging to them and their careers. And if you say no, do suggest other potential reviewers to the editor. This is really helpful and also speeds up the process.
Be open-minded. I recently read an inspiring book on academic writing, Every Day I Write the Book by Amitava Kumar (blog post on this book coming soon!). In a way, this book is a love letter to academic writing or, perhaps more accurately, to good academic writing. Kumar explores how academics can get their ideas across in nontraditional ways, how they can make their writing engaging and exciting, and how they might merge the personal with the scholarly. I talked (excitedly!) to a client about his ideas and she asked, “How will writing like that pass peer review?” I think this is a very valid question and one that deserves attention. So I also invite you as peer reviewers to be open to the different, nontraditional forms an academic book might take. Don’t evaluate something based on how closely it hones to forms that you might be familiar with, but rather think about what the author aims to accomplish, how this work helps us understand or think differently about a phenomena, and whether the form effectively accomplishes this. Try and remember that scholarly writing can have various structures, tones, voices, etc. New forms can be exciting and illuminating. And if you have concerns or questions, you can always get in touch with the editor who sent the piece to you and discuss it with them.
Following the above suggestions will help the peer review process go more smoothly and make it easier for authors to take in your suggestions and act on them. You also won’t break their hearts! As an editor, I very much believe that revision makes writing stronger, but the negative tone to many peer reviews can make it much harder for authors to take full advantage of the benefits of this process.
And if you do get a peer review that hurts your heart, set it aside for a week or two and return to it when things feel less raw. You might even ask a friend (or an editor) to summarize it for you, helping to identify the most constructive and useful feedback. Try not to take it personally, but instead capitalize on it to find the suggestions that will help your work shine.
*****
Like this blog post? Subscribe to my blog below for updates on posts about writing, editing, and scholarly life.
