Peer Review: You Have the Reader Reports – Now What?
This post is the final post in a three part series on peer review. The other posts advised on how to write thoughtful, helpful, and compassionate reader reports (i.e. that do not make writers cry!) and explored how to handle the emotional strain of receiving reader feedback. But what do you do once you have these reader reports? Both new and more experienced scholars struggle with this stage of the publishing process. So here I share some advice on what to do once you’re ready to make decisions about how (or whether) to incorporate reviewer feedback into your writing.
First, here’s a quick overview of peer review for those of you who may not be familiar with it. Peer review is a process followed by academic publishers (of books and journals) that is meant to ensure a high-quality of scholarly publication (though it can also further gate keeping and other exclusionary aspects of academia). As part of this process, a journal or book editor will send a manuscript that they are considering publishing to “reviewers,” scholars who ideally have knowledge about the manuscript’s subject matter. They read the manuscript and return it to the editor with a “reader report,” a summary of their feedback. Authors then need to respond to the reader reports (unless they say everything is perfect, which is rare!) usually by completing revisions and producing a letter that explains what revisions the author has (or hasn’t) made and why. Usually, authors will receive two or three reports for each manuscript. Sometimes editors at the press will help authors interpret the reports, advising on feedback that they should take seriously and what might be ignored. But often writers are given very little guidance on what direction to take in their revisions.
So what to do when you receive your reader reports?
Cultivate an openness to suggestions. Once you are ready to dive into these comments, try to read them with an open mind. Acknowledge that you have worked really hard on your manuscript, but also that almost all writing can benefit from revision. Remember that you do want your book or article to be the best it can be and that revision is an important part of achieving that goal. It’s always difficult to see criticism of your own work, but also remember the editor has had your manuscript reviewed because it is strong and they believe it would make a good book or article.
Remember you do not need to integrate all of these suggestions. Since you will likely be working with several reader reports, you will be dealing with many suggestions. Know that your editor does not expect you to incorporate all of them (especially if the list is long). So as you begin to tackle your revision plan, work on flagging the suggestions that you most want to implement, by which I mean the ones that you think will most improve the manuscript. Some ideas for how to do this follow.
Look for patterns. You likely will have at least two reader reports to work with. As you try to determine which suggestions to implement, pay attention to places where the reviewer suggestions overlap. If everyone agrees that your argument is unclear, it probably is. If everyone feels that your piece is organized in a confusing way, it probably is. But if only one reader advises a particular revision, that is likely a place where you might have more leeway in deciding whether you want to implement it.
Identify suggestions that align with your vision. Beyond looking for overlap, also pay attention to revisions that will clearly help you improve your manuscript in directions that you are excited about. Which revisions, when implemented, will help you maintain your vision for the manuscript? These are definitely revisions that you want to pay attention to. For example, maybe one of your goals is to make your manuscript accessible to undergraduate students. If a reviewer points out a section that they felt had excessive jargon, rewriting it in more accessible language would likely help make your writing more intelligible to students.
Pay attention to guidance from the editor. If your acquisitions editor gives their own feedback with the reader reports, take this seriously. If they strongly suggest that you implement particular reviewer suggestions, definitely consider doing so. This is not to say that you must do everything they recommend, but they will be the person at the press who is making the case that your book should be published so their thoughts matter. They are also an expert on scholarly publishing and have a good idea of what makes a strong book. If you have questions about their suggestions, ask for a meeting to discuss them further.
Pay attention to strong feelings. Pay attention to aspects of the reader reports that the reviewer clearly feels strongly about. These might be captured in the form of language they use. If someone says, “The author absolutely must [do a thing]” it’s obviously clear that the reviewer is invested in this issue. Remember that in some cases, and commonly with book manuscripts, these reviewers may be asked to read the manuscript again once revisions are completed. So if a reviewer feels strongly about something, you at least want to consider implementing that revision. If you don’t feel that this suggestion is in keeping with your vision for the book, this might be something to check in with your editor at the press about (again, you don’t have to implement all of the suggestions!) and/or you’ll want to make a clear case in your response letter about why you chose not to revise in this way.
Also, pay attention to your own strong feelings. If you find yourself feeling sure that implementing a suggestion will take your manuscript in a direction that you don’t support, consider whether you can get away without doing that. Or maybe you can find a way to implement the revision, but in a way that better maintains the integrity of the book. For example, if the reviewer proposes that you write a new chapter considering how gender relates to your topic and you do not want to (or have the time to) write a new chapter on gender, perhaps you can find a way to better incorporate discussions of gender throughout the manuscript itself.
And if the reader reports bring up strong feelings because the reports are sexist, racist, homophobic, etc., you definitely want to have a conversation with your editor about these concerns (more on this here).
Seek help. If you remain overwhelmed about figuring out what to do with these reader reports, get help. This could involve talking to your editor at the journal or press. Having a conversation could help clarify which suggestions they feel are most important to pay attention to as well as their expectations for revision.
Other possibilities include asking a colleague to read the reports and help you to chart a path forward (note that this takes time, so be very thankful and offer to return a similar favor!). If you have the financial resources or research funds, you could hire a developmental editor to read the reader reports and the manuscript and to suggest a pathway forward. Developmental editors can help authors maintain their visions for the book, while using reader reports to make their manuscripts stronger.
Basically, don’t stay stuck – get someone to help you sort through these challenges.
Decide to revise the manuscript. After you have done the work of reviewing the reader reports and deciding what you would need to do to get the manuscript published at this particular outlet, step back and make sure you do want to do this work. Will implementing these revisions still make it possible to write the book or article you want to write? It might be that the new vision begins to feel too different from the project that you want to do. If that’s true, remember that you can always walk away and take the piece elsewhere. Though be practical if you do decide to make this decision (Does switching presses fit with your timeline for tenure or other professional goals? Are you realistically evaluating how much these revisions will alter the project?). Especially with a book manuscript, it would be a good idea to have a frank conversation with your editor about your concerns before you pull the plug. You may find that they support your vision and encourage you to deal with reviewers accordingly. But, hopefully, after evaluating the reports you will feel that they will actually help you make your book the book that you want it to be.
Revise the manuscript. Now that you have a plan for revision, it’s time to jump in and make the changes. You likely have a deadline that you are working with so you might prioritize your revisions in order of most essential to least essential to ensure you get the most important things done in time. When you are choosing where to start from among the most essential changes, try and begin with something that is fairly straightforward. This can help you feel like you have accomplished something, while also giving your brain time to work on the more difficult suggestions. Remember that you aren’t revising to end up with a perfect manuscript, but rather to significantly improve your manuscript. Aiming for better can help you to get these revisions done since it helps you to avoid getting bogged down with trying to achieve perfection. (William Germano’s book On Revision has some helpful reflections on aiming for better, especially pps. 79-80 and 143-4).
Document your revisions. Keep track of your revisions as you go. It may seem like there is no way you will forget what you have done with your manuscript but, believe me, it is easier to do this than you think! So keep a list of the revisions you made, both directly in response to the reader reports, as well as any additional revisions that you made yourself (perhaps that were inspired by these). These will be very helpful when you go to write your response to reviewers.
Write a response. Most editors like you to respond to the reader reports when you submit your revised manuscript though some want a response detailing a revision plan before you begin to revise. I will write a future post on this letter in more depth. But for now, what you want to do in this response is to explain which revisions you made (or plan to make) to the manuscript, give a bit of explanation of how you did this, and why. For example, “I am grateful to the reviewer for their suggestion to revise my argument to better incorporate the second half of the text. I expanded my argument to include this by [give example]. This makes the text more coherent. I also revised the second half of the article accordingly to help make it more tightly connect with the first half by [insert examples of how you did this here].” You don’t have to respond to every single suggestion a reviewer had in their report, but definitely do respond to the major ones and, if you chose not to enact some of them, clearly explain why you made that choice. Keep the language of the letter positive and avoid getting defensive. You are building a case here that you appreciate the reviewer feedback, you will indeed improve the manuscript, and that you will be able to maintain your vision for the book.
*****
I hope that these suggestions help to demystify this aspect of the peer review process and make you more confident when facing reader reports. Remember, this is your manuscript. You need to make choices that you are proud of and that help you put forward the best manuscript that you can. While initially reader reports can be painful, my experience as a developmental editor is that, generally, if authors approach them thoughtfully, the suggestions they contain almost always help them produce manuscripts that are significantly stronger than they were when they started. And remember that it is a gift to have reader reports at all. They mean that your editor sees the value in your work and hopes that it will be published. So congratulations and good luck with your revisions!
*****
Like this blog post? Please subscribe below to receive notifications about future posts.
