How to respond to critical or negative feedback on your writing
Receiving feedback on your academic writing can be a mixed bag. Praise feels great, but negative feedback? Yeah, it sucks. However, it is an unavoidable part of sending your academic writing out into the world, and developing your own strategy for handling negative feedback constructively is absolutely essential in order to grow, both as a writer and scholar. Here is my 8-step process for responding to those critiques effectively and turning them into opportunities for improvement.
Step 1: Pause and resist the urge to delete every word you've ever written
First, take a deep breath. Negative feedback can be tough to digest, especially when you've invested considerable time and effort into your work. Give yourself some time to absorb the comments without reacting impulsively. (Easier said than done, I know.) And then put them away for a few days. Give your nervous system some time to calm down and then, after a few days, revisit the feedback. This pause helps you approach the comments with more clarity, meaning that you can come back to your manuscript and consider which parts of the feedback are actually useful and which you can disregard.
Step 2: Re-read the feedback with a view to understanding the extent of the changes you need to make
Carefully read through the feedback in order to identify the main points of criticism. On the first read-through, if you're anything like me, it probably feels like the reviewer is saying that the manuscript or chapter or book is a complete write-off and that the broader research agenda has no redeeming features and, really, why are you even bothering doing any of this at all because you're clearly not suited to a career in academia. This is a normal, if somewhat overblown, response to critical evaluation.
When you are re-reading the feedback, read with a view to understanding the specific areas of critique. Four common types of feedback I see a lot in academic writing relates to the structure, clarity, argumentation, or evidence. Understanding what the reviewer is actually suggesting you need to do to improve your work is important, because it will largely dictate what your next steps are. If the feedback relates to technical errors, sometimes it's as straightforward as doing a more careful spell-check; on the other hand, if a reviewer suggests your argument is flawed or doesn’t have enough evidence to support it, that can require more extensive rethinking and revising (and sometimes more data collection or analysis...).
Step 3: Remember that not all feedback is created equal
A cardinal rule of feedback is that not all feedback is equally valuable. And some of it can be downright unhelpful, or even rude. To separate the wheat from the chaff, consider the source of the feedback and their expertise. Constructive feedback from a seasoned professor or peer reviewer is more likely to be helpful than a vague comment from a less experienced peer (though it must be said that this isn’t always the case). Learn to distinguish between feedback that is constructive and feedback that may be less relevant.
Step 4: Seek support
Don’t be afraid to seek help. Discuss the feedback with your supervisor or mentor, join a writing group, or work with a professional editor (well, hey, if you’re looking for a professional editor, I know a great one...). These are all very grown-up and productive ways to work through negative feedback; these people can provide additional perspectives and help you refine your writing further. However, don't underestimate the value of a good vent session with a friend or colleague (wine optional). Sometimes, all you really need is to have a bit of a rant about how patently unreasonable and wilfully obtuse a feedback-giver is.
Step 5: Seek clarification if need be
If any feedback is unclear, don’t hesitate to ask for clarification. Send a polite email to the person who gave you the feedback or talk to them directly if possible. Understanding precisely what they mean ensures you can address the issues effectively. Of course, sometimes that’s not an option – for many journals, double-blind peer review means (in theory at least) that the reviewer doesn’t know who you are and you don’t know who they are. In that case, if you have been given the opportunity to revise your manuscript in response to a reviewer’s comments but you’re not entirely sure about how to do so, drop the editors a polite email. They will often be able to give you guidance on what they see as the particularly crucial aspects of the feedback and which areas may be less important. They can also help you navigate conflicting reviewer reports.
Step 6: Develop a plan of action
Of course I was going to tell you to develop a plan of action! Surely you know me well enough by now to know that there’s always a plan of action. So, you have a clear understanding of the feedback; now you need to create a plan to address it methodically. Break down the feedback into discrete and manageable tasks. There are a couple of ways of doing this.
One is to copy and paste the reviewer’s suggestions into a table in Word or Google Docs or an Excel spreadsheet. Although confronting, I like this approach because it means, when you send your revisions back, you have step-by-step, line-by-line, incontrovertible evidence that you have considered each and every one of the comments.
The second approach is to arrange the feedback thematically. This is a good way to go if there is a degree of overlap between the reviewers’ comments, and you can address them in a single response – particularly for general feedback which can be easily fixed such as a need to proofread your work carefully or rework the introduction to better signpost the article, say. It doesn't work so well if the reviewers' reports diverge significantly (and they sometimes even contradict each other).
By the end of this step, then, you want to have a list of the things that you need to change in order to meet the feedback-givers’ expectations, arranged either reviewer by reviewer or thematically.
Step 7: Revise and improve the manuscript
Now it’s time to revise and improve your article or chapter or whatever. And you’ll simply go through your plan of action, making the changes and checking off each point as you address it. You will want to write a brief response to each of the points as you change it. For example, if the feedback was to restructure a certain section, your corresponding note might be ‘Revised structure in this section in line with feedback so that it now begins by addressing A before turning to B and C and concluding with a new discussion of D’.
Broadly speaking, the main issues can be resolved as follows:
Clarity: Rewrite confusing sections, and seek feedback from a colleague or use a clarity tool.
Structure: Create a new outline and reorganize your paper according to it.
Argument: Gather additional evidence, and ensure your argument flows logically.
Technical errors: Proofread your work again or use grammar-checking tools.
Keep in mind that you don’t have to accept every suggestion that a reviewer makes. Sometimes the feedback will be just wrong. The trick here is to pick your battles and push back strategically. Implement all of the other suggestions and then, for the two or three things that you absolutely refuse to change, write a very diplomatically-worded explanation of why it’s a stupid suggestion that you have no intention of following. The goal of your overview table of feedback and responses is to seem like a thoroughly reasonable person who is grateful for the feedback – regardless of whether you are, indeed, thoroughly reasonable or grateful. If you concede as many points as possible – and do so graciously (‘We really appreciate this thoughtful suggestion from the reviewer and agree that it has strengthened the paper...’) – it should afford you a little more wriggle room to push back when it really matters.
Step 8: Reflect on the process
After you’ve made your revisions and resubmitted your work, take some time to reflect on the feedback process. What did you learn? How did the feedback improve your writing? Reflecting on these questions can help you approach future pieces of writing more efficiently and deal with feedback more constructively. Negative feedback is a not-fun and, to a certain extent, inevitable part of academic writing, but it can also be a really useful tool for improvement. By approaching it with a positive and proactive attitude (after you’ve had your vent, obviously, and maybe daydreamed about posting an envelope full of glitter to the commenter), aim to turn the critical feedback into a useful learning experience.