GIVING CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK Keeping the authors on board Michelle Proctor

Constructive Feedback Tips on feedbackTips on feedback Tools for commenting/giving feedbackTools for commenting/giving feedback ChecklistsChecklists

Before giving feedback ask: What stage is the work at? (1 st draft, pre-submission)What stage is the work at? (1 st draft, pre-submission) What am I expected to review? (grammar / style / content / methods)What am I expected to review? (grammar / style / content / methods) Who else is reviewing / has reviewed it?Who else is reviewing / has reviewed it?

Constructive feedback Is specificIs specific Criticizes the work NOT the personCriticizes the work NOT the person Avoids mixed messagesAvoids mixed messages Is expressed in the positive (where possible)Is expressed in the positive (where possible) Suggests actions / remediesSuggests actions / remedies

Is specific Too wordyToo wordy Hard to readHard to read Confusing!Confusing! Use shorter sentences Use less technical language Use shorter words Avoid wordy phrases (eg prior to, with respect to)

Your ordering is illogical.Your ordering is illogical. Your English is terrible!Your English is terrible! The Cochrane Handbook suggests that you put the methods section before the results. The language could benefit from checking by a native English speaker, the editorial base may be able to help with this. Criticises the work not the person

Avoids mixed messages Avoid yes, but messages.Avoid yes, but messages. Includes however and althoughIncludes however and although You have worked hard on this review, but....You have worked hard on this review, but....

Your sentences are far too long.Your sentences are far too long. Your thinking is muddled.Your thinking is muddled. Shorter sentences may make it easier to read. The paragraphs in this section are very detailed and informative. They may be easier for readers to understand if you separated them into the benefits and problems with the treatment. Expressed in the positive

Suggest actions I would have liked to have read about….in your discussion. not The discussion missed important detailsI would have liked to have read about….in your discussion. not The discussion missed important details "I don't understand the organization of this section. Are you trying to do …. here? If so it may be useful to …." not "This section is really poorly organized.""I don't understand the organization of this section. Are you trying to do …. here? If so it may be useful to …." not "This section is really poorly organized."

Dealing with disagreements Turf warsTurf wars InternalInternal 1.Reviewer/reviewer 2.Reviewers/editors 3.Reviewers/editors/referees Role of publications ombudspersonRole of publications ombudsperson

Tools of editing Red pen, fax and post?Red pen, fax and post? Electronic methods – free form, checklists, track changes in Word editElectronic methods – free form, checklists, track changes in Word edit Latter can be useful if multiple edits are requiredLatter can be useful if multiple edits are required Example: Renal Group: simple checklist for referees, technical editor fills out checklist plus provides a Word version of the review with Track changes

Checklists