Peer review is a fundamental activity in social science. Whether you are a student or a seasoned professor, constructive feedback on your article by your colleagues is a necessary step in the writing process.
A hallmark of feedback is an honest assessment of the strengths and limitations of the work under review. Honesty is necessary, but it can be hurtful. We are people, after all, and writing is an emotional act. As such, another hallmark of peer review is providing respectful feedback.
There are some helpful guides on how to provide written feedback:
Instructor’s Guide for Giving Feedback (Purdue University)
This guide discusses about different types of comments teachers can make. Peer review should focus on big issues first, with clear examples, praise for good work, and clear comments, all the while showing appreciation for the student’s effort.
Giving Feedback on Student Writing (University of Michigan)
This guide discusses the importance of clear, fair, and consistent feedback that supports student learning and development. There are different types of feedback: formative (to improve drafts) and summative (evaluating final pieces). Feedback has levels. It can address both higher order concerns (like the logic and structure of the argument) and lower order concerns (such as grammar).
“Give Your Students Better Writing Feedback” by Monaghan (2016)
This guide emphasizes prompt and specific responses and the encouragement of a culture of revising one’s own work. It also emphasizes positive reinforcement alongside constructive criticism.
The author discusses two main types: proximate and holistic. Proximate feedback is detailed and selective, usually embedded directly in the text or in the margins. It typically involves marking specific mistakes or making suggestions related to a specific word or sentence, primarily for error correction. Holistic feedback is comprehensive, provided as endnotes at the top or bottom of the page, and focuses on the major points of advice related to the the work as a whole. The emphasis here is content and idea development. While proximate comments is easier to provide, students tend to prefer holistic feedback, which allows them to focus on a few significant areas for improvement as they revise their work.
Science relies on constructive criticism. Here’s how to keep it useful and respectful (Cunningham et al in Science, 2021)
The article discusses the importance of constructive criticism in science, emphasizing respectful and useful feedback. It offers advice on giving criticism, such as being humane, embracing humility, avoiding straw man arguments, and assuming the best intentions. To embrace humility is to acknowledge your own limits and to consider that your critique might not fully grasp the other’s work or perspective. Avoid the straw man arguments: don’t misrepresent or oversimplify someone else’s argument for the sake of easier critique. Do assume the best intentions — despite flaws or disagreements, assume that the work aims to contribute positively to the scientific discourse. For receiving criticism, it suggests not taking it personally, being open to being wrong, taking the high ground, and ignoring trolls.
Feedback can hurt. Consider this article: “Positive feedback: the science of criticism that actually works“
“…when we receive criticism, we go through three stages. The first, he said, with apologies for the language, is, “F*** you.” The second is “I suck.” And the third is “Let’s make it better…. ”
The key is not get stuck on stages 1 and 2.
“When we feel optimistic about feedback, we imagine the kind of insights a good therapist might offer, gentle but piercing appraisals of our strengths and weaknesses, precious gems of knowledge sharp enough to cut through our self-delusions and insecurities. On a deeper level, many of us crave the thrill of being known, of being truly understood. Of course, this is not what feedback is actually like. We overestimate the capacity of our colleagues to calibrate their comments to our individual emotional states. We underestimate how bruising it is to hear that we are not meeting expectations, even when the issues are minor. And we can be surprised by critiques that do not line up with our sense of who we are…”
Summary: How to provide constructive peer review?
Colleagues want constructive, respectful, and honest critique. It is best to prioritize major over minor issues, give clear examples, praise good work, and show appreciation for their effort. Feedback has levels. It should be proximate, offering specific suggestions within the text, and holistic, addressing overall content and ideas. Encourage a revision culture, practice humility, avoid misrepresenting others’ arguments, and assume positive intentions.
To make academia better, we need to be honest, and encourage improvement while acknowledging the emotional weight of peer review feedback.
Written by Joshua Dubrow
The Sociology Place 