Commentary examines affective responses to peer review in academic writers, highlighting strategies to reframe critical feedback as collaborative scholarly development.
Peer review is rarely discussed as an emotional experience, yet authors’ affective responses to revise-and-resubmit (R&R) decisions can profoundly shape their capacity to engage in revision and access their best thinking. When left unexamined, these responses may be especially challenging for early-career colleagues who are still forming their identities as scholars and writers. This commentary explores the affective dimensions of peer review and invites authors to see their reactions as sources of insight rather than obstacles to overcome. Drawing on experiences as author, reviewer, editor, and mentor, as well as relevant literature, the commentary reframes “Reviewer 2” as a thought partner, offers practical strategies for navigating revision without compromising intellectual integrity, and calls on reviewers and editors to consider how their feedback is experienced. Ultimately, it positions peer review as a site of mutual scholarly development rather than unidirectional judgment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xueli Wang (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: