20 | How to Give Good Feedback on Colleagues’ Drafts

Best Practices

When a colleague asks for a review of their manuscript or grant proposal, they likely view you as a trusted source of wisdom. Embrace this opportunity for collaboration—as a subject matter expert in the field or not, you have value to offer as a reader of an early or later draft. Is the content clear? Is the logic sound? What is the most compelling aspect of this work? Authors are often too engrossed in the details to grasp higher-level perspectives that can turn a decent piece of writing into an extraordinary one. To help them along, use the mnemonic device RAP (Respectful, Actionable, Prioritized): the corresponding advice will help you to avoid a bad “RAP” from a few botched reviews and learn to give constructive feedback that is important for building a good RAPport with colleagues.

1. Respectful comments. There are many aspects of giving respectful feedback. For starters, choose words carefully when adding critical comments to a document. Authors will be more receptive to comments if they are phrased as suggestions or questions versus mandates. Second, be timely with feedback (it is always best to give an author plenty of time to review and act on your comments). Third, remark on both the strengths of the writing as well as its weaknesses. Lastly, withhold judgment on a poorly written first draft because the final version may turn out to be phenomenal. In that situation, a good strategy is to provide high-level comments about topics, like what’s missing and what needs more attention, and offer to provide more detailed comments or revisions in a later draft.
2. Actionable advice. When commenting, avoid ambiguous statements like “the meaning in this paragraph is not clear”; instead query, do you mean this or that and point out what specific wording is problematic. Additionally, don’t recommend actions that are not feasible. For example, if a document has already been through a pre-submission inquiry or the peer-review process, the author may not be able to rewrite whole sections. Also, be aware that lengthy new experiments may not be possible if there is a tight publishing timeline or budget. A good practice is to inquire with the author about what types of feedback they want.
3. Prioritized recommendations. Last but not least, prioritize! Shape the feedback according to the author’s stated needs and timeframe for the review. Try not to give too much feedback or you risk overwhelming the author and using your time inefficiently; conversely, try not to give too little feedback if improvements are warranted because help is clearly wanted. Importantly, focus time and effort on the highest points of leverage for improving the document. Your role in this is as a peer reviewer of a colleague’s work and not that of an editor or publisher with the responsibility for eliminating all errors.

Again, the mnemonic device RAP (Respectful, Actionable, Prioritized) can help with remembering these tips. Giving good feedback is important for building a good rapport with colleagues and promoting their success.