1 / 12

Constructive Feedback Guidelines for Authors

This guide by Michelle Proctor provides tips and tools for giving constructive feedback to authors. It includes checklists and advice on avoiding mixed messages, providing specific critiques, and suggesting actionable improvements. Learn how to keep authors engaged and onboard while improving their work.

tmoreland
Download Presentation

Constructive Feedback Guidelines for Authors

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. GIVING CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK Keeping the authors on board Michelle Proctor

  2. Constructive Feedback • Tips on feedback • Tools for commenting/giving feedback • Checklists

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

  4. Constructive feedback • Is specific • Criticizes the work NOT the person • Avoids mixed messages • Is expressed in the positive (where possible) • Suggests actions / remedies

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

  6. Your ordering is illogical. 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

  7. Avoids mixed messages • Avoid “yes, but” messages. • Includes “however” and “although” • “You have worked hard on this review, but. . . .”

  8. Your sentences are far too long. 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

  9. Suggest actions • ‘I 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."

  10. Dealing with disagreements • ‘Turf wars’ • Internal • Reviewer/reviewer • Reviewers/editors • Reviewers/editors/referees • Role of publications ombudsperson

  11. Tools of editing • Red pen, fax and post? • Electronic methods – free form, checklists, track changes in Word edit • Latter 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’

  12. Checklists

More Related