This article was originally published at Ideas on Fire on May 23, 2017.
You’ve got reviewer comments back on your academic book or article. How do you decide which ones to incorporate?
In this second installment of our two-part series on reviewer comments, I’ll talk you through how to read the sometimes conflicting advice reviewers give on manuscripts and how to decide which reviewer suggestions to follow. In Part 1, I covered the big-picture strategy of approaching revisions, and here I’ll tackle how to implement that strategy for the specific, detailed feedback you receive from reviewers.
Argument and Narrative Arc are Key
Pay particularly close attention to reviewer comments that substantially engage with your book or article’s argument as well as those that address the manuscript’s narrative arc. Your narrative arc is the single story you tell across the entire manuscript—every sentence in the manuscript should explicitly contribute to that single story (if you have stuff in there that doesn’t explicitly contribute to the arc, cut it—you can always use that material in a different publication). A strong narrative arc ensures all the pieces of the text hang together and that the order of those pieces builds momentum from the beginning to the end. In an article, the narrative arc is going to be smaller than in a book of course, but there should still be a clear one. If your narrative arc is unclear, readers will get lost. So pay particular attention to reviewer comments that identify unclear sections, note you need stronger transitions, question the order of your ideas (this comes before that, etc.), or misidentify your argument. These things indicate your narrative arc is weak and you aren’t yet telling a clear singular story.
Pay Attention to What Reviewers Don’t (or Mis-) Understand
Note what sections confuse your reviewers. They will indicate this by either saying they don’t understand or something needs more clarification, or by misunderstanding what you are trying to say (for instance, they may misidentify your main argument or use a different definition than you do for something). Resist the urge to say they are wrong and of course you explain that clearly. As the author, it is your job to care about readers because without readers you can’t be an author. So try to resist the knee-jerk response of “you just don’t understand me!” When reviewers don’t understand something, they are giving you crucial information about something it is your job to fix. Do you need to define your terms more explicitly? Do you need to stop burying your argument at the end of paragraphs or under other scholars’ voices? Do you need to use different terminology to explain a particular point? Do you need to craft stronger topic sentences (or perhaps craft topic sentences for the first time)? Think about how you handle this in the classroom—when a student is brave enough to raise their hand and say they don’t understand something you’re talking about, do you dig your heels in further and say they’re just not trying hard enough? Of course not. You figure out another way to say that thing or provide another clarifying example because the goal in the classroom and in our written work is to clearly communicate our ideas in a way that audiences can understand and then use.
Most reviews contain at least a few easy edits that you can do quickly. Things like adding citations, deleting material, including another example, or swapping out word choices are super easy to do. Just do them. It doesn’t matter how small or silly they may seem, just do them. Save your energy for the bigger revisions.
Be Pragmatic with New Research
Sometimes reviewers will recommend you engage a brand new field of scholarship or add a new section about a new topic—revisions that would require a substantial time and energy commitment and new research. When encountering these recommendations, first gauge how important that suggestion is to the reviewer(s). If it something one reviewer mentions in passing and thus isn’t super important (like “perhaps you could add this new topic” or “have you thought about engaging with X literature?”), consider doing a shortened version of it like adding a few sentences or a footnote or two with resources. If multiple reviewers make the same suggestion or insist that you need to do this for your text to be relevant as scholarship (for example, if you’re writing a book or article that doesn’t engage with a crucial field or doesn’t cite anything published in the last 5 years), you’ll need to do it. As I mentioned in Part 1 of this series, you’ll identify how long that revision will take you and schedule time on your calendar to complete it. Be realistic when scheduling this, given your other professional and personal commitments. If you’re working on an article, you often have the option of leaving that new research direction for the book version, but you’ll still need to acknowledge in the article itself that the new direction is relevant and you’ll be expanding on it elsewhere.
Humility and Confidence
Writing requires an intense mixture of humility and confidence. As authors we must be humble enough to identify what is important to readers and let their desires and confusions guide how we craft our manuscripts—after all, they’re the ones that are choosing to read our work, and that is a gift that deserves our respect. But we must also be confident enough to think our voice matters in the world and thus clearly, boldly, and explicitly say what we mean, stripped of any obfuscating (and defensive) tricks. Keeping this mixture at the forefront of your writing and revision process ensures amazing scholarship that can actually have the impact in the world you are aiming for when you write.
Image credit: WOC in Tech Chat (www.wocintechchat.com). Check them out, they’re awesome!
Sign up for Ideas on Fire’s newsletter
Podcast episodes, articles, and offers right to your inbox to help you rock your interdisciplinary career