Editor’s Note: Previously, this series on scholarly publishing has offered advice on approaching an editor, getting a book contract, and writing a “timely” book.
Peer review can be stressful, even for the most seasoned scholarly writers. Will the reviewers “get” your book project or pan it? There is always a degree of uncertainty. But a negative review does not necessarily mean your manuscript won’t get published. How you respond to harsh criticism can be as important as the criticism itself in determining whether you ultimately get a book contract.
In October, I wrote “In Defense of Reader 2,” about the peer-review process and the notorious hypercritical reviewer known as “Reader 2” (in sending you peer reviews of your work, editors tend to put the more positive report first and the relatively negative one next — hence the name Reader 2). Here I offer practical advice on how to react thoughtfully to — and extract useful lessons from — even the most frustrating feedback.
A quick refresher on the process: Academic presses might seek peer reviews (aka readers’ reports) of a book proposal, of sample chapters, or of a full manuscript. Editors use the reports when deciding whether to seek board approval to offer you a contract, invite you to revise and resubmit (R&R) for another round of reviews, or reject the project. Your editor may also ask you to write a response to the readers’ feedback and explain your plans for revision. This is where you’ll need some political and rhetorical savvy.
I try to prepare authors for a rough review, underscoring my continued enthusiasm for the project and offering to talk about the reports. The most important thing to remember is: However unpleasant the critiques, when editors ask you to write a response, they intend to publish your book. While there are no guarantees in this business, that is the goal. Trust your editor to guide you through the process and try not to take it out on them too much. They are on your side.
Who will see your response? Some publishers may have specific guidelines on what form the writer’s response to reviewers should take. Usually, you will be asked to write a letter addressed to the acquiring editor. But remember: Plenty of others will read it, too, including:
- Press staff members. Your response becomes part of the materials associated with your project and so may be read by various people as your manuscript makes its way through the pipeline.
- Series editors. If your project is part of a book series, its editor(s) may provide feedback on your revision plan, or, if the project is going to the press editorial board, may write a short letter of support to accompany it.
- Editorial board members. All projects must ultimately be approved for publication by the board or a comparable committee. At university presses, boards typically consist of professors in relevant fields from the parent institution. Board members will have access to all the readers’ reports and your response(s). So even if you’re just being asked by your editor to revise and resubmit for now, do be mindful that, if all goes well, your response will eventually be read by the board.
- Peer reviewers. Editors will share an author’s response letter with peer reviewers when asking them to evaluate the revised manuscript. While it’s ideal to get the same readers during the second round of reviews, I won’t go back to one who truly seemed hostile or inhospitable to the project. Such readers are rare though.
Keep your tone formal and cordial. Try to avoid sounding defensive, aggressive, or outraged, no matter how justified your frustration with the reports. If I am worried that an author’s response letter will rub the editorial board the wrong way, I let the writer know and propose changes. But editors are also strapped for time and you can’t necessarily expect that level of feedback, so you need to monitor your own delivery, too.
Authors tend to sound most irritated in these letters when they don’t see how the feedback is relevant and don’t want to undertake the suggested revisions. You can — and should — make decisions, in consultation with your editor, about which critiques are useful and which lie beyond the bounds of your project. But tersely refusing to make certain changes, not bothering to deal with significant concerns that are raised, or insulting the reviewer’s intelligence will not go over well. Peer reviewers put a lot of labor into their reports, and it’s important to dignify them with an engaged response.
The Modern Language Association (a member of the Association of University Presses) offers this helpful guidance: “Those reading your response want to have confidence in you as the author (or editor or translator) of the project, as someone who can complete the project successfully. Therefore, the response should be clear and specific. If the response is vague about next steps for the project or glosses over any challenging parts of the reviews, readers may wonder if you have a plan at all.”
Here are the major points to include in your response:
- Start with the positive. Even if the readers recommended publication with major revisions, they still recommended publication, and that bears noting briefly. You don’t want to misrepresent the reports, but you can acknowledge any significant praise before tackling the criticism and the suggestions for revision. For example: “I was delighted that Reader 1 found my focus on X and Y to be promising, while also pointing to a number of ways I might strengthen my argument.”
- Answer the most salient critiques. You don’t need to discuss every suggestion, and you probably can’t if the reports are lengthy. Some writers opt to discuss the reports separately, dealing with Reader 1’s feedback, and then Reader 2’s. That can work if they comment on different issues; however, I recommend synthesizing the reports as much as possible. Maybe both readers provided a list of further literature for you to consider, or both had a lot to say about chapter four. Give sustained attention to big issues — a need for further scholarly engagement to draw out your book’s unique contribution, the question of what to do with chapter four. Small issues — some typos, a couple missing references — can be summarized at the end of your letter in a sentence or two (e.g., “I will also check for typos and ensure that all references in the text are in the works cited”).
- Provide context. People reading your response will have the peer reviews on hand, but try to avoid making them flip back and forth between your letter and the readers’ reports. Your response should be a self-contained document. Give us all the information we need to follow your argument, tying your plans for revision to specific points made by the readers. Incorporate short quotes from the reports, as you would any other text about which you’re writing.
- Don’t just tell — show. Demonstrate what you describe. If, for example, a reviewer says your argument is unclear, don’t just say “I will clarify my argument in the revisions” and hope to convince the editorial board members. Show them you’re up to the task. Devote a paragraph to explaining what your argument is and then detailing what, exactly, you’ll do to draw it out more fully in the manuscript.
- Note your timeline. Indicate when you expect to complete your revisions. Be realistic! As an editor, I’m always eager to move forward — we do need to publish books, after all. But I don’t want you to rush revisions, and neither do the board members. They want to see that you comprehend the magnitude of the task in front of you.
What if I disagree with the reports? You may absolutely push back on the critiques — politely. In describing the much-feared Reader 2, Ken Wissoker, senior executive editor at Duke University Press, emphasized: “The reviewer is trying to help the author solve a problem.” If Reader 2’s solution isn’t right, then “what’s a better way of ameliorating the problem?”
You don’t have to do everything your book’s peer reviewers suggest, but you do need to explain why you’re not, and what you’ll do instead.
A reader report that misses the point of your project can still be helpful: For example, it can alert you that some argument you were hoping to get across in the draft is not being clearly conveyed. At other times, it may feel like Reader 2 didn’t bother to read your manuscript at all. Their report may just be off base. In my experience, editorial boards will recognize it, too. The board is not going to arbitrarily penalize an author because a peer reviewer was out to lunch or oddly fixated on details tangential to the actual project. In your response letter, say something like, “I worry this reader is pushing for a different project” and explain how.
You can’t prevent someone from reading in bad faith. But you can use other strategies, such as anticipating a counterargument, to pre-empt quibbles. I often tell authors to “let the seams show” — i.e., make your rationale explicit. Why did you choose a particular approach? What is your rationale for selecting this set of texts, and omitting others? What’s the reason that you sequenced your chapters in this way? Put all of that thinking on the page — of both your response and your manuscript.
What if the reviewers disagree with each other? You may get “split” reports — one positive, the other negative. Sometimes an editor may solicit a third report to “break the tie.”
A positive report doesn’t cancel out a negative review (or vice versa) but you may be able to use the favorable one to help make your case. Maybe Reader 1 thought chapter four was your strongest chapter while Reader 2 thought it should be cut. Those may not be irreconcilable assessments. Perhaps small revisions to your first three chapters can make them as strong as Reader 1 thought chapter four was. Maybe you can do more in the introduction and in that fourth chapter to show readers why it’s important for your overarching argument.
Or maybe the readers really do just disagree and you need to decide whose take to run with. Trust yourself. Instead of changing your vision for your book, find ways to use the reports to strengthen and more effectively realize that vision.
All that smart stuff you say in your response letter? Now say it in the book. The goal of this exchange isn’t just to convince your editor and the board that your project has a clear rhyme and reason. It’s also to indicate how you’ll convince your book’s readers.
Writers typically send me a draft of their response letter to get my two cents. Hands down, my most common feedback is: “You’ve done a great job explaining A, B, and C in this letter. Now add a sentence saying that, in revising, you’ll also take care to explain A, B, and C in the manuscript.” That may be implied, but it’s worth making explicit, both for the board and for yourself. Ideally, writing the letter will provide a road map for you in making revisions. I revisited my response to readers’ reports constantly while revising my own monograph.
Talk with your editor. A particular peer review may have you seeing red. Ask your editor for help in translating its meaning. We may see value in the critique that you can’t. Sometimes the notorious Reader 2 is onto something. Maybe a reviewer expresses surprise that you didn’t engage with the literature in a certain subfield and you’re thinking “um, because I’m not in that subfield.”
Fair enough, but, especially in turning a dissertation into a monograph, some expansion generally needs to happen. There may be scholarly conversations outside of your immediate purview that readers will expect you to deal with in the book. Doing so can help you further articulate your project’s contribution and widen your potential audience — both of which are good things.
When will the editor need your written response? If you aren’t given a deadline, ask for one. With a board meeting fast approaching, I may need your letter within a few days in order for the members to consider offering you a contract. But if the peer reviews call for major revisions, I may suggest you take some time to read and reflect on the remarks first, before reworking the manuscript.
Some editors may be glad to receive your response at the same time as you submit the revised manuscript. I generally like to receive the letter earlier, though, just to make sure we’re on the same page.
What if your revision plans change after writing your response to the feedback? As with all things, I recommend keeping the channels of communication open. Send your editor a short note to confirm that your new plan is OK. And, when you submit your revised manuscript, include a cover letter that explains the changes.
A bad report can be deeply dispiriting, but it’s not necessarily a deal breaker with your publisher. Peer review is often misconstrued as a means of direct communication on the part of the reviewer when, in fact, it’s a collaborative, polyvocal process in which you have a strong voice. As with so many genres of academic writing, the response letter tends to be undertaught in graduate school and underappreciated. It may feel at times like just another hurdle you need to clear. But a powerful response doesn’t just persuade others of how great your project is. It reminds you, too.