Skip to main content

How to give constructive feedback

Constructive feedback is one of the most valuable outcomes of peer review. As an editor, you help ensure authors receive comments that are fair, specific, and genuinely useful, regardless of whether the final decision is acceptance, revision, or rejection.

Your role is not only to make decisions. It is to help authors improve their work and, in doing so, strengthen the academic record.

Mature old female mentor or manager training young intern explaining sharing professional skills in office. Middle aged senior business woman teacher speaking to student teaching trainee at meeting.

Start with clarity: decision, priorities, and rationale

Authors should understand quickly what the decision is, the main reason behind it and what they need to prioritize. Open with a clear, plain-language decision followed by a a short rationale that captures the key drivers behind it. Then signpost priorities so authors can plan their response efficiently. Where helpful, label your main points explicitly.

  • Essential issues: points that affect validity, ethics, reproducibility, or the central claim

  • Important improvements: changes that materially strengthen interpretation, framing, or presentation

  • Minor points: clarity, formatting, and small corrections

This quick structure makes your letter easier to navigate without turning it into a checklist. A useful mindset is to write your decision letter as if it will be read by an early-career researcher on a difficult day. Clear feedback reduces confusion, speeds up revision cycles, and lowers the likelihood of complaints or appeals.

Make feedback actionable and specific

Vague guidance often forces authors to guess what is required, which slows revision and increases frustration. When summarizing reviewer feedback, translate comments into actions tied to specific sections of the manuscript.

A practical way to phrase key requests is to use the ‘issue - impact – fix’ structure. For instance: “The inclusion criteria are not fully described, which makes it difficult to assess generalizability. Please add explicit criteria and a short description of the sampling frame in your methods.”  

Balance critique with a supportive tone

You can be direct without being harsh. Briefly acknowledging strengths helps authors distinguish between ‘this work has potential’ and ‘this work is fundamentally flawed’. Keep language focused on the manuscript rather than the authors and avoid accusatory wording. When the outcome is negative, clarity and respect matter even more. If you are rejecting a manuscript:

  • provide sufficient reasoning for authors to learn from the decision

  • clearly explain what would need to change before resubmission elsewhere

  • avoid over-prescribing a full rewrite if the journal is not inviting resubmission.

Constructive rejection still contributes to improvement.

Manage disagreement and keep revisions proportionate

Conflicting reviewer recommendations are common, especially across disciplines. Rather than forwarding contradictions and letting authors arbitrate, explain how you weighed the input and what you want the authors to address. This is also where you can prevent reviewers’ lists of revisions from ballooning into unrealistic demands. Consider making one short paragraph that clarifies:

  • which concerns you consider decision-critical

  • which requests are optional or out of scope for this manuscript

  • whether a limitation statement or justification could be acceptable in place of new analyses.

As an editor, you’re responsible for the tone and the success of the peer review. If a review includes dismissive tone, personal remarks, or speculation about motives, remove or paraphrase the language while preserving the substantive scientific critique. If a comment is too vague to act on, request clarifications from the reviewer before including it. This protects authors and strengthens the review record.

Close with a clear next step

End your decision letter by addressing any ambiguity. For revisions, specify what a strong response should include, typically:

  • a point-by-point response to all comments

  • clear indication of where changes were made in the manuscript

  • evidence-based reasoning if the authors choose to disagree with a suggestion.

If timelines, reporting requirements, or data/materials expectations apply, restate them briefly. Constructive editorial feedback doesn’t lower standards; it makes them usable. When your communication is clear, respectful, and actionable, you help authors improve their work, and you help the journal publish stronger, more reliable research.

What to read next