What Is Editorial Feedback?
Whether it’s book reviewers, book bloggers or journal editors reviewing submitted manuscripts, editorial feedback is a necessary part of the writing process. It’s an invaluable opportunity to get unbiased opinions about your work and support the revision and editing phase.
Editorial feedback isn’t always easy to receive, but it can be rewarding. Ensure that your team has the tools they need to efficiently handle submissions, reviews and notes with a submission management platform.
It’s a process
The feedback your team receives on a manuscript is an integral part of the editing process. It helps shape a manuscript into an exceptional work of literature and provides invaluable advice about how to improve it. However, not all suggestions are created equal and it’s important to understand how and when to take on editorial advice from your reviewers.
The most effective way to do this is by presenting the editorial feedback in a logical and intuitive manner that is easy to understand. For example, instead of a laundry list of suggestions and points, organize the feedback into three or four categories that make sense to the author.
This will help your content team understand which suggestions are worth taking on board and which ones to pass over. It will also make the revisions process less traumatic and more efficient. This is because you can have a much better idea of how to implement the feedback on your next draft, and how long it will take you. The result is a more polished piece of writing with better flow and more effective pacing.
It’s a conversation
Editorial feedback is a conversation between two or more authors and editors. It’s a chance to discuss ideas and concerns that the editor or reviewer has about an article, while giving the author an opportunity to respond to feedback in their own words. It’s a chance to help the author improve their work and make it more compelling for readers.
A lot of the conversations that take place between editors and writers are based on questions about specific aspects of a submission, says Corinna Wu, a senior editor at Chemical & Engineering News. For example, a writer might want to know more about how to write an engaging lede or illustrative background for their research paper, Wu says. A writer might also have specific concerns about the core reporting skills needed to cover a particular topic or about how to pick and interpret research papers that are likely to appeal to niche audiences. Whittling the feedback discussion down to a few specific questions helps both parties identify what kind of input is most valuable for them, Chodosh says.
As you head into revisions, be sure to file away any advice you receive and revisit it when it’s time to start writing a new draft. Your ego may want to reject every suggestion and you might not be willing to give up on the manuscript, but the truth is that editors are trying to help you write the best piece possible.
It’s a challenge
For many writers, the process of receiving editorial feedback can be a challenge. The feedback you receive may be well intended, but it may not be what you need at the moment or even when you are ready for it. The best way to approach your reviewer’s suggestions is to take a look at the bigger picture and make a strategic plan that focuses on which aspects of your writing need improvement, in which order, and how you will implement them. This will make the process easier on you and your editor alike, and will ensure that your manuscript is in the best possible shape to go to print. And don’t forget to file your comments away so that you can refer back to them when the time is right.
It’s a reward
Editorial feedback is something that is often a reward for the writer. For one thing, it gives them a chance to learn from the experience and to improve their writing. It also shows them that they’re part of a team who cares about their work. It’s also a way for editors to show that they value their input and to improve their own editorial skills.
However, it can be a problem if the reviewer’s advice is ignored or expanded in a manner that does not reflect a good reason for doing so. In these cases, I would recommend that the authors of the paper be able to acknowledge the reviewer’s contribution to the quality of their work by putting a reference or line on the published manuscript to the reviewer. This is a more transparent and ethical way to acknowledge a reviewer’s efforts, as well as a much better way of rewarding them. I hope that this can be implemented by journals in the near future, especially given the escalating cost of peer review, which has eroded the incentive to do it in the first place.
