Helpful Tips for Reading Critical Feedback on Academic Writing

Helpful Tips for Reading Critical Feedback on Academic Writing
One of the most difficult of texts for an academic or scientist to read accurately and productively is critical commentary on his or her own writing. It may not be the most challenging text in intellectual terms, at least on the surface, but there is an unfortunate emotional impact that comes with less than positive feedback about a piece of work that has taken so much time and effort to produce. In many cases, an author shares writing with readers because he or she believes that it is polished and ready for consumption. Critical responses often introduce the unappealing fact that the text may not be quite as finished as the author had hoped, and this can be difficult to swallow, further increasing the challenges associated with understanding critical feedback accurately and putting it to the best use.

One defence against the shock that may be produced by critical commentary is to be aware of the simple fact that asking a qualified individual – a colleague, a mentor, a fellow student or a professional editor – to read your writing and offer feedback is tantamount to stating that the writing is not finished. You are seeking another perspective and the greatest benefit of doing so lies in the continuing possibility of change. Accept that your writing is not quite finished, and the feedback will take on a fairer aspect. If, on the other hand, the criticism is from an acquisitions editor and you had indeed already considered the manuscript completely polished and publishable, the news might be extremely unwelcome. Two thoughts may come as a comfort: the editor bothered to give you detailed commentary, so your work has proved interesting, and, if the problems are genuine, you have been saved from a publication that you may have looked back upon with regret.

There are two basic ways in which to read critical commentary. So often do the two intertwine and overlap in the subtle processes of scholarly communication that even to separate them for discussion is something of an artificial exercise, but perhaps a useful one.
1) Feedback can be read at face value as an accurate statement of the problem. For example, the editor notes that ‘you did not use the correct documentation style.’ This is almost certainly a fact, and you will need to return to the publisher guidelines and adjust your citations and references in accordance with the instructions.
2) Feedback can be read as an important acknowledgement of a problem that may or may not be exactly what the critic claims. For instance, let us posit an editor noting that ‘your conclusion here does not seem to follow from your findings.’ Now it may be that there is face value to the comment – that is, that your conclusion is not as logical or inevitable as you think it – but a variety of other possibilities might be considered. Did you perhaps not explain the logic as clearly as you might have? Have you neglected some crucial detail? Were you less than explicit about the speculative nature of your discussion at that point? Many different questions might apply, but the main one is ‘Do you need to alter your thinking or only your written report of it?’

It is a subtle question, of course, but even that simple statement about documentation style can have subtleties. Does the editor mean that you have used a numerical method of referencing when you should have used the style of the American Psychological Association? Or does he or she simply mean that you used semicolons throughout your references where you should have used colons? If there is no elaboration on the part of your critic, you will need to assess the instructions against your references and determine exactly what the problem is in order to revise your work successfully. The same will be the case with that comment on your conclusion. You will need to read the criticism critically, analyse the possibilities and, if necessary, ask for further explanation before you can approach the task of effective revision.