Trail Stop 5: Writing Constructive Feedback

Becoming an Excellent Peer Reviewer: A Writer’s Camp Learning Trail

Jenny Chicca, PhD, RN, CNE, CNEcl

Writer’s Camp Senior Staff

---

Write the review that you would like to receive.

---

Every author remembers receiving a difficult peer review. Some reviews are frustrating because they are vague. Others sting because they feel unnecessarily harsh. The most challenging reviews are often those that identify problems without offering a path forward.

As reviewers, we rarely have the opportunity to see the impact our words have on authors. Yet the quality of our feedback can influence not only a manuscript, but also an author’s confidence, motivation, and willingness to continue contributing to the scholarly conversation. Constructive feedback helps authors improve their work, supports editorial decision-making, and ultimately strengthens scholarly communication. In short, constructive peer review helps high-quality, pertinent, and important work reach publication.^1-4

Over the years, I have been called many things as a reviewer—tough, detail-oriented, and thorough—but I can tell you one thing I have never been called: unkind. Constructive peer review is not about avoiding criticism. It is about delivering criticism in ways that help authors improve their work.

For me, four trail markers help keep reviews focused, useful, and professional: be balanced, be specific, be transparent, and be yourself.

Marker 1: Be Balanced

Constructive peer reviews acknowledge strengths as well as identify weaknesses and areas for improvement. Recognizing strengths encourages authors and helps editors understand a manuscript’s potential. One useful approach is the “sandwich” method: begin with positive observations, provide constructive critique, and conclude with encouraging and forward-looking remarks, including thanking the author.

For example:

• “This manuscript addresses an important topic …”
• “The manuscript would benefit from additional organization, particularly in the discussion section …”
• “These revisions will help strengthen an already worthwhile contribution to the nursing literature. Thank you for the opportunity to review this work.”

The sandwich method helps maintain a constructive tone throughout the review.

Being balanced also means being civil. Even when recommending rejection, there is no reason to be dismissive, sarcastic, or unkind. Behind every manuscript is an author who has invested significant time and effort in their work. Whether novice or experienced, most authors approach peer review with at least some degree of anxiety.

To maintain a professional and constructive tone, you should focus on the manuscript, not the author. Rather than writing “You should clarify this section,” refer to “the manuscript” or “the section,” i.e., “This section could be clarified.” Yes, I know, that is more passive than “You should” and we often encourage active voice in writing, but this is an exception.

In addition:

• Use professional language.
• Avoid dismissive or sarcastic comments.
• Offer suggestions for improvement whenever possible.

Even significant concerns can be framed in ways that help rather than discourage authors. When I find myself struggling to phrase a comment, I often write my thoughts first and then revise them. I read my comments aloud and try to view them from the author’s perspective. Occasionally, I even ask artificial intelligence (AI)—or as we say at Writer’s Camp, Counselor Byte—to help me rephrase a sentence in a more constructive and caring way.

A balanced review does not avoid criticism. Rather, it delivers criticism in a way that helps authors improve their work and supports editors to make informed decisions.

Marker 2: Be Specific

Specific and factual feedback helps authors and editors far more than generic statements. Consider the difference between the following comments:

• “The manuscript is unclear.”
• “The methods are weak.”
• “The abstract is wordy and hard to follow.”

While these statements may reflect a reviewer’s concerns, they can leave authors wondering what exactly needs to be changed. What is unclear? Why are the methods weak? What information is missing? Generic comments often create more questions than answers.

Instead, provide specific feedback based on what appears in the manuscript and established best practices. For example:

• “The purpose of the manuscript should be stated more explicitly in the introduction.”
• “Additional details about participant selection would strengthen the methods section.”
• “The abstract would benefit from a clearer progression from background to methods, results, and implications.”

Whenever possible, direct authors to a specific location in the manuscript by citing a page, section, paragraph, or line number. Even more helpful is offering an example of how a concern might be addressed. Specific comments help authors understand how to revise their work and help editors interpret the significance of reviewer concerns.

If you are unsure where to focus your review, consider the questions in Table 1.

Table 1. Things to Consider for Specificity

Section	Questions to Ask
All Sections	Is each section concise and clear? Are sections organized? Do they fit with the rest of the paper? Are necessary references included or are key references missing? Are the references current overall?
Introduction/Background	Does this section set the stage for the rest of the paper?
Literature Review	Does this section provide context?
Body/Design/Results	(Tailored to the type of paper) Does the conceptual piece have organized headings? Does the research article include all data collection and analysis considerations?
Discussion	Does this section compare what is known to the content of the paper? Are implications offered with specific examples of how information can be applied to practice?
Conclusion	Does this section summarize the entire work in a succinct way? Is new information introduced? (It shouldn’t be.)
Tables/Figures/Illustrations	Does each table, figure, or illustration add value to the paper? Is the table or figure needed? Does it enhance rather than duplicate the text? Is it easy to follow?
Abstract (review this last)	Does the abstract summarize the work? Does it capture the reader’s interest? Does it clearly address the “so what?” factor or explain why the work is important to nursing?

One additional way to provide specific feedback is to suggest references. Thoughtful reference recommendations can strengthen a manuscript and help authors engage with relevant literature. However, these suggestions should be used sparingly and strategically. Do not suggest only your own publications. Likewise, do not suggest only citations from the journal for which you are reviewing. While relevant citations should be recommended when appropriate, you should avoid citation practices that could be perceived as self-promotion or attempts to artificially increase a journal’s citation metrics. Another thought to keep in mind is to be selective and avoid overwhelming authors with long citation lists.

When you do suggest a reference, explain why it would be useful to the manuscript. For example: “Consider incorporating recent literature, as these studies provide additional context for the discussion of faculty transition experiences. Here are two useful examples,”—and then provide the complete citations so the author can find them easily. Nothing is more frustrating than trying to track down an incorrect, ghost, or hallucinated reference.

Finally, consider how your comments are formatted. Reviewers often phrase feedback as questions, such as: “Why did you choose this method?” or “Can you clarify this section?” Although these comments may seem polite, they can leave authors uncertain about what action is needed as they don’t have a way to directly answer your question(s). Sometimes, questions come across as rhetorical musings, which is really not helpful. Instead, frame comments as suggestions: “Provide the rationale for selecting this method,” and “Expand this section by including additional details about …”

Constructive feedback should make it clear what you are recommending and why. Your goal is not simply to identify problems, but to help authors understand how those problems might be addressed.

Marker 3: Be Transparent

Constructive reviews are not only balanced and specific; they are also transparent. Authors may never know who reviewed their manuscript, but they will see the comments exactly as they were written. For that reason, you should assume their words will be read carefully and remembered long after the review process is complete.

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) advises editors not to alter reviewer comments except in rare circumstances.⁵ This practice supports transparency and trust in the peer review process. As a reviewer, it is important to write comments that are professional, clear, and appropriate for sharing directly with authors.

Before submitting your review, take a few moments to proofread it. Check spelling, grammar, and clarity. A well-written review demonstrates professionalism and helps ensure your feedback is understood as intended.

Most submission systems provide opportunities to write comments intended for the author(s) and those only for the editor. Comments to the author should contain constructive feedback as discussed throughout this article. This is where you identify strengths, explain concerns, and suggest revisions.

Comments to the editor provide a place for information that may not be appropriate to share directly with authors. Examples include ethical concerns, questions about journal fit, concerns about plagiarism or duplicate publication, and your rationale for recommending acceptance, revision, or rejection.

Some submission systems collect this information through structured questions, while others rely on open comment boxes. If both options are available, avoid unnecessary duplication. Provide the information where it is most useful and relevant.

If you are ever uncertain about what authors will see versus what remains confidential to editors, contact the journal’s editorial office for clarification. Understanding how your comments will be used is part of being a thoughtful and transparent reviewer.

Transparency builds trust among reviewers, editors, and authors. Clear, professional, and appropriately directed comments strengthen both the review process and the scholarly record.

Marker 4: Be Yourself

Now that you know how to be balanced, specific, and transparent, I have one final trail marker to share: be yourself.

Over time, you will develop your own reviewing style, and that is a good thing. A consistent approach makes reviewing easier, helps you organize your thoughts, and allows editors to know what to expect when they invite you to review a manuscript. Thoughtful, constructive, and reliable reviewers quickly become valued members of a journal’s reviewer community.

Although every reviewer develops their own approach, effective reviews often include the following elements:

• A brief summary of the manuscript.
• Recognition of the manuscript’s strengths.
• Discussion of major concerns, often organized by section.
• Minor suggestions for improvement.
• An overall recommendation.
• Encouraging and forward-looking closing remarks.

Your review does not need to look exactly like someone else’s review. Some reviewers prefer narrative comments, while others organize feedback by manuscript section. Some focus heavily on methodological issues, while others pay particular attention to clarity, organization, or implications for practice. What matters most is that your feedback is constructive, specific, and helpful.

As your experience grows, so will your confidence and your reviewing style. The best reviewers are not those who imitate others perfectly. They are those who bring their expertise, judgment, and professionalism to the review process in ways that help authors, editors, and ultimately the scholarly community.

Conclusion

Peer reviewers play a vital role in advancing nursing scholarship. Through thoughtful, constructive feedback, reviewers help authors strengthen their work, assist editors in making informed decisions, and contribute to the quality and integrity of the scholarly record.

Constructive peer review is not about finding fault. It is about helping authors see both the strengths of their work and opportunities for improvement. By striving to be balanced, specific, transparent, and authentic in your approach, you can provide feedback that is both rigorous and respectful.

The next time you complete a peer review, take a moment before clicking “submit.” Read your comments one final time and ask yourself a simple question: If I were the author receiving this feedback, would I know how to improve the manuscript?

Constructive peer review is not about being nice. It is about being useful. The most effective reviewers help authors see a path forward. Nursing scholarship depends on reviewers willing to do exactly that.

References

1. Chicca J, Shellenbarger T. Crafting a meaningful nursing peer review. Nurse Author & Editor. 2023;33:13-17. doi:10.1111/nae2.12053
2. Munro CL. Writing a peer review. In: Saver C, ed. Anatomy of Writing for Publication for Nurses. 5th ed. Springer Publishing; 2024:135-144.
3. Chicca J, Shellenbarger T. Civility in nursing peer review: Giving and receiving feedback. Nurse Author & Editor. 2018;28(4):5. doi:10.1111/j.1750-4910.2018.tb00029
4. Choi HR, Montayre J. Peer review in nursing: A guide for early career scholars. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2026;35:3-6. doi:10.1111/jocn.70054
5. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Editing peer reviews. COPE. Accessed April 23, 2026. https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/editing-peer-reviews

Author: Jenny Chicca

Reviewed and Edited by: Leslie H. Nicoll

Copyright © 2026 Writer’s Camp and Jenny Chicca. CC-BY-ND 4.0

Citation: Chicca J. Trail stop 5: Writing constructive feedback. The Writer’s Camp Journal, 2(3):4 doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20966803