essay review comments

Reviewer comments: examples for common peer review decisions

Peer-reviewing an academic manuscript is not an easy task. Especially if you are unsure about how to formulate your feedback. Examples of reviewer comment s can help! Here you can find an overview of sample comments and examples for the most common review decisions: ‘minor revisions’, ‘major revisions’, ‘revise and resubmit’ and ‘reject’ decisions.

Examples of ‘minor revisions’ reviewer comments

Examples of ‘major revisions’ reviewer comments, examples of ‘revise and resubmit’ reviewer comments, examples of ‘reject’ reviewer comments.

• “This is a well-written manuscript that only needs to undergo a few minor changes. First, …”
• “The manuscript is based on impressive empirical evidence and makes an original contribution. Only minor revisions are needed before it can be published.”
• “I thoroughly enjoyed reviewing this manuscript and only have some minor requests for revision.”
• “The authors develop a unique theoretical framework, and I believe that they should highlight their originality much more.”
• “The authors conduct very relevant research, but fail to emphasise the relevance in their introduction.”
• “The authors draw on extensive empirical evidence. I believe that they can put forward their arguments much more confidently.”
• “The authors adequately addressed my feedback from the first round of peer review. I only have some minor comments for final improvements.”
• “To improve the readability of the paper, I suggest dividing the analysis into several subsections.”
• “Figure 3 is difficult to read and should be adjusted.”
• “Table 1 and 2 can be combined to create a better overview.”
• “The abstract is too long and should be shortened.”
• “I had difficulties understanding the first paragraph on page 5, and suggest that the authors reformulate and simplify it.”
• “The manuscript contains an elaborate literature review, but definitions of the key concepts are needed in the introduction.”
• “Throughout the manuscript, there are several language mistakes. Therefore, I recommend a professional round of language editing before the paper is published.”
• “The paper should undergo professional language editing before it can be published.”

If you want to learn more about common reasons for a ‘minor revisions’ decision and see examples of how an actual peer review might look like, check out this post on ‘minor revisions’ .

• “The manuscript shows a lot of promise, but some major issues need to be addressed before it can be published.”
• “This manuscript addresses a timely topic and makes a relevant contribution to the field. However, some major revisions are needed before it can be published.”
• “I enjoyed reading this manuscript, and believe that it is very promising. At the same time, I identified several issues that require the authors’ attention.”
• “The manuscript sheds light on an interesting phenomenon. However, it also has several shortcomings. I strongly encourage the authors to address the following points.”
• “The authors of this manuscript have an ambitious objective and draw on an interesting dataset. However, their main argument is unclear.”
• “The key argument needs to be worked out and formulated much more clearly.”
• “The theoretical framework is promising but incomplete. In my opinion, the authors cannot make their current claims without considering writings on… “
• “The literature review is promising, but disregards recent publications in the field of…”
• “The empirical evidence is at times insufficient to support the authors’ claims. For instance, in section…”
• “I encourage the authors to provide more in-depth evidence. For instance, I would like to see more interview quotes and a more transparent statistical analysis.”
• “The authors work with an interesting dataset. However, I was missing more detailed insights in the actual results. I believe that several additional tables and figures can improve the authors’ argumentation. “
• “I believe that the manuscript addresses a relevant topic and includes a timely discussion. However, I struggled to understand section 3.1.”
• “I think that the manuscript can be improved by removing section 4 and integrating it into section 5.”
• “The discussion and conclusions are difficult to follow and need to be rewritten to highlight the key contributions of this manuscript.”
• “The line of argumentation should be improved by dividing the manuscript into clear sections with subheadings.”

If you want to learn more about common reasons for a ‘major revisions’ decision and see examples of how an actual peer review might look like, check out this post on ‘major revisions’ .

• “I encourage the authors to revise their manuscript and to resubmit it to the journal.”
• “In its current form, this paper cannot be considered for publication. However, I see value in the research approach and encourage the authors to revise and resubmit their manuscript.”
• “ With the right changes, I believe that this manuscript can make a valuable contribution to the field of …”
• “The paper addresses a valuable topic and raises interesting questions. However, the logic of the argument is difficult to follow. “
• “The manuscript tries to achieve too many things at the same time. The authors need to narrow down their research focus.”
• “The authors raise many interesting points, which makes it difficult for the reader to follow their main argument. I recommend that the authors determine what their main argument is, and structure their manuscript accordingly.”
• “The literature review raises interesting theoretical debates. However, in its current form, it does not provide a good framework for the empirical analysis.”
• “A clearer theoretical stance will increase the quality of the paper.”
• “The manuscript draws on impressive data, as described in the methodology. However, the wealth of data does not come across in the analysis. My recommendation is to increase the number of interview quotes, figures and statistics in the empirical analysis.”
• “The authors draw several conclusions which are hard to connect to their empirical findings. “
• The authors are advised to critically reflect on the generalizability of their research findings.”
• “The manuscript needs to better emphasise the research relevance and its practical implications.”
• “It is unclear what the authors consider their main contribution to the academic literature, and what they envisage in terms of recommendations for further research.”

If you want to learn more about common reasons for a ‘revise and resubmit’ decision and see examples of how an actual peer review might look like, check out this post on ‘revise and resubmit’ .

• “I do not believe that this journal is a good fit for this paper.”
• “While the paper addresses an interesting issue, it is not publishable in its current form.”
• “In its current state, I do not recommend accepting this paper.”
• “Unfortunately, the literature review is inadequate. It lacks..”
• “The paper lacks a convincing theoretical framework ,  which is necessary to be considered for publication.”
• “Unfortunately, the empirical data does not meet disciplinary standards.”
• “While I applaud the authors’ efforts, the paper does not provide sufficient empirical evidence.”
• “The empirical material is too underdeveloped to consider this paper for publication.”
• “The paper has too many structural issues, which makes it hard to follow the argument.”
• “There is a strong mismatch between the literature review and the empirical analysis.”
• “The main contribution of this paper is unclear.”
• “It is unclear what the paper contributes to the existing academic literature.”
• “The originality of this paper needs to be worked out before it can be considered for publication.”
• “Unfortunately, the language and sentence structures of this manuscript are at times incomprehensible. The paper needs rewriting and thorough language editing to allow for a proper peer review.”

If you want to learn more about common reasons for a ‘reject’ decision and see examples of how an actual peer review might look like, check out this post on ‘reject’ decisions .

Master Academia

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.

Subscribe and receive Master Academia's quarterly newsletter.

Minor revisions: Sample peer review comments and examples

5 proven ways to become an academic peer reviewer, related articles.

The different stages in the manuscript publication process

How to write a literature review introduction (+ examples)

How to write effective cover letters for a paper submission

Dealing with failure as a PhD student

• Peer Review System
• Production Service
• OA Publishing Platform
• Law Review System
• Why Scholastica?
• Customer Stories
• eBooks, Guides & More
• Schedule a demo
• Law Reviews
• Innovations In Academia
• New Features

Subscribe to receive posts by email

• Legal Scholarship
• Peer Review/Publishing
• I agree to the data use terms outlined in Scholastica's Privacy Policy Must agree to privacy policy.

How to Write Constructive Peer Review Comments: Tips every journal should give referees

Like the art of tightrope walking, writing helpful peer review comments requires honing the ability to traverse many fine lines.

Referees have to strike a balance between being too critical or too careful, too specific or too vague, too conclusive or too open-ended — and the list goes on. Regardless of the stage of a scholar’s career, learning how to write consistently constructive peer review comments takes time and practice.

Most scholars embark on peer review with little to no formal training. So a bit of guidance from journals before taking on assignments is often welcome and can make a big difference in review quality. In this blog post, we’re rounding up 7 tips journals can give referees to help them conduct solid peer reviews and deliver feedback effectively.

You can incorporate these tips into your journal reviewer guidelines and any training materials you prepare, or feel free to link reviewers straight to this blog post!

Take steps to avoid decision fatigue

Did you know that some sources suggest adults make upwards of 35,000 decisions per day ? Hard to believe, right?!

Whether that stat is indeed the norm, there’s no question that we humans make MANY choices on the regular, from what to wear and what route to take to work to avoid construction to which emails to respond to first and how to go about that really tricky research project in the midst of tackling usual tasks, meetings — and, well, everything else. And that’s all likely before 10 AM!

In his blog post “ How to Peer Review ,” Dr. Matthew Might, Professor in the Department of Medicine and Director of the Hugh Kaul Precision Medicine Institute at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, explained that over time the compounding mental strain of so much deliberation can result in a phenomenon known as decision fatigue . Decision fatigue is a deterioration in decision-making quality, which for busy peer reviewers can lead to writing less than articulate comments at best and missing critical points at worst.

In order to avoid decision fatigue, Might said scholars should try to work on peer reviews early in the day before they become bogged down with other matters. Additionally, he advises referees to work on no more than one review at a time when possible, or within one sitting at least, and to avoid reviewing when they feel tired or hungry. Taking steps to prevent decision fatigue can help scholars produce higher quality comments and, ultimately, write reviews faster because they’ll be working on them at times when they’re likely to be more focused and productive.

Of course, referees won’t always be able to follow every one of the above recommendations all of the time, nor will journal editors know if they have. But, it’s worth it for editors to remind reviewers to take decision fatigue into account before accepting and starting assignments.

Be cognizant of conscious and unconscious biases

Another decision-making factor that can cloud peer reviewers’ judgment that all editors should be hyper-attuned to is conscious and unconscious biases. Journal ethical guidelines are, of course, the first line of defense for preventing explicit biases. Every journal should have conflict of interest policies on when and how to disclose potential competing interests (e.g., financial ties, academic commitments, personal relationships) that could influence reviewers’ (as well as editors’ and authors’) level of objectivity in the publication process. The Committee on Publication Ethics offers many helpful guides for developing conflict of interest / competing interest statements, and medical journals can find a “summary of key elements for peer-reviewed medical journal’s conflict of interest policies” from The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) here .

But what about unconscious biases that could have potentially insidious impacts on peer reviews?

Journals can help curb implicit bias by following double-anonymized peer review processes. Though, as the editors of Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology acknowledged in an announcement about their decision to move to double-anonymized peer review, even when all parties’ identities are concealed “unintentional exposure of author or institution identity is sometimes unavoidable, such as in small, specialized fields or subsequent to early sharing of data at conferences.”

Truly tackling unconscious biases requires getting to their roots, starting with acknowledging that they exist. Journals should remind reviewers to be cognizant of the fact that everyone harbors implicit biases that could impact their decision-making, as IOPScience does here and Cambridge University Press does here and provide tips for spotting and addressing biases. IOP advises reviewers to “focus on facts rather than feelings, slow down your decision making, and consider and reconsider the reasons for your conclusions.” And CUP reminds referees that “rooting your review in evidence from the paper or proposal is crucial in avoiding bias.”

Journals can also offer unconscious bias prevention training or direct referees to available resources such as this recorded Peer Reviewer Unconscious Bias webinar from the American Heart Association.

Null or negative results aren’t a basis for rejection

Speaking of forms of bias that can affect the peer review process, “positive results bias” — or the tendency to want to accept and publish positive results rather than null or negative results — is a common one. In a Royal Society blog post on what makes a good peer review, Head of the Department of Population Health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Dr. Rebecca Sear, spoke to how positive results bias can throw a wrench in peer review. Speaking from the perspective of an author, editor, and reviewer, Sear said, “at worst, this distorts science by keeping valuable research out of the literature entirely. It also creates inefficiencies in the system when publishable research has to be submitted to multiple journals before publication, burdening several reviewers and editors with the costs of evaluating the same research. A further problem is that the anonymity typically given to peer reviewers can result in unprofessional behavior being unleashed on authors.”

Journals can help prevent positive results bias by clearly stating that recommendations regarding manuscript decisions should be made on the basis of the quality of the research question, methodology, and perceived accuracy (rather than positivity) of the findings. Remind reviewers (and editors) that null and negative results can also provide valuable and even novel contributions to the literature.

List the negatives and the positives

When it comes time to write peer review comments, some scholars may intentionally or not lean heavily towards giving criticism rather than praise. Of course, peer reviews need to be rigorous, and that requires a critical eye, but it’s important for reviewers to let authors know what they’re doing right also. Otherwise, the author may lose sight of the working parts of their submission and could end up actually making it worse in revisions.

Journals should remind reviewers that their goal is to help authors identify what they are doing correctly as well as where to improve . Reviews shouldn’t be so negative that the author ends up pulling apart their entire manuscript. Additionally, it’s worth reminding reviewers to keep snarky comments to themselves. As Dr. Might noted in his blog, the presence of sarcasm in peer review may nullify any useful feedback provided in the eyes of the author.

Give concrete examples and advice (within scope!)

No author likes hearing that an area of their paper “needs work” without getting context as to why. It’s essential to remind reviewers to back up their comments and opinions with concrete examples and suggestions for improvement and ensure that any recommendations they’re making are within the scope of the journal requirements and research subject matter in question.

Remind reviewers that if they make suggestions for authors to provide additional references, data points, or experiments, they should be within scope and something the reviewer can confirm they would be able (and willing) to do themselves if in the author’s position.

One of the best ways to help train reviewers on how to give constructive feedback is to provide them with real-world examples. These “ Peer Review Examples “ from F1000 are a great starting point.

Another way editors can help reviewers give more concrete commentary is by advising them to log their reactions and responses to a paper as they read it. This can help reviewers avoid making blanket criticisms about an entire work that are, in fact, only applicable to some sections. It may also encourage reviewers to recognize and point out more positives!

Providing reviewers with detailed feedback forms and manuscript assessment checklists is another surefire way to help them stay on track.

Don’t be afraid to seek support

Journals should also remind prospective reviewers that it’s OK to ask for support when working on peer reviews. For example, an early-career researcher might want to seek a mentor to co-author their first review with them or provide general guidance on how to determine whether an experiment was conducted in the best manner possible (keeping manuscript information confidential, of course).

To help new referees get their footing, journals can assist them in identifying mentorship opportunities where applicable and offer peer reviewer training or links to external resources. For example, Taylor & Francis has an “ Excellence in Peer Review “ course, and Sense About Science has a “ Peer Review Nuts and Bolts “ guide.

For journals dealing with specialized subject matter, it’s also critical to be prepared to bring in expert opinions when needed. Editors should let reviewers know not to hesitate to suggest bringing in an expert if they feel it’s necessary.

Follow the Golden Rule

Finally, perhaps the best piece of advice journals can give reviewers is to follow the Golden Rule. You know it, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

In his “How to peer review” guide, Dr. Matthew Might provided a clear barometer for referees to determine if they’ve prepared a thorough and fair review. “Once you’ve completed your review, ask yourself if you would be satisfied with the quality had you received the same for your own work,” he said. “If the answer is no, revise.”

Related Posts

Research Integrity Tools for Journals: Plagiarism detection best practices

Verifying the originality of submissions is foundational to upholding the research integrity of any scholarly publication. In this post, Head of Marketing and Community Development at Scholastica Danielle Padula discusses plagiarism detection best practices for journals.

Most Popular Scholastica Blog Posts of 2015 for Peer-Reviewed Journals

A look back at the 10 most popular peer-reviewed journal posts from the Scholastica blog in 2015.

New search optimizations for journals hosted via Scholastica

Researchers are more likely to visit and frequent journal websites that provide relevant search results fast. At Scholastica, we get that, and it's why we're continually introducing improvements to optimize the Scholastica Open Access Journal Publishing Platform for web browsers and on-site search. Learn about the latest search features in this blog post.

Submission form customization without added complexity or costs?: Yes, it's possible.

At Scholastica, we don't think peer review system configuration should have to equal complexity or added costs. Here's how we're making submission form customization easier for editors — no need to wade through multi-page manuals or pay for bespoke development work.

Journals Declaring Independence from Corporate Publishers: Past and future

Could the noteworthy actions of Lingua's editors spark a revolution of journals declaring independence from corporate publishers?

From the grassroots: 7 ways journal publishers can promote climate justice

To help promote conversations and initiatives happening around climate justice in scholarly publishing this Open Access Week, Scholastica is highlighting seven ways academy journal publishers can facilitate climate justice from the grassroots. We invite you to share additional ideas and examples in the comments section!

The Savvy Scientist

Experiences of a London PhD student and beyond

My Complete Guide to Academic Peer Review: Example Comments & How to Make Paper Revisions

Once you’ve submitted your paper to an academic journal you’re in the nerve-racking position of waiting to hear back about the fate of your work. In this post we’ll cover everything from potential responses you could receive from the editor and example peer review comments through to how to submit revisions.

My first first-author paper was reviewed by five (yes 5!) reviewers and since then I’ve published several others papers, so now I want to share the insights I’ve gained which will hopefully help you out!

This post is part of my series to help with writing and publishing your first academic journal paper. You can find the whole series here: Writing an academic journal paper .

The Peer Review Process

When you submit a paper to a journal, the first thing that will happen is one of the editorial team will do an initial assessment of whether or not the article is of interest. They may decide for a number of reasons that the article isn’t suitable for the journal and may reject the submission before even sending it out to reviewers.

If this happens hopefully they’ll have let you know quickly so that you can move on and make a start targeting a different journal instead.

Handy way to check the status – Sign in to the journal’s submission website and have a look at the status of your journal article online. If you can see that the article is under review then you’ve passed that first hurdle!

When your paper is under peer review, the journal will have set out a framework to help the reviewers assess your work. Generally they’ll be deciding whether the work is to a high enough standard.

Interested in reading about what reviewers are looking for? Check out my post on being a reviewer for the first time. Peer-Reviewing Journal Articles: Should You Do It? Sharing What I Learned From My First Experiences .

Once the reviewers have made their assessments, they’ll return their comments and suggestions to the editor who will then decide how the article should proceed.

How Many People Review Each Paper?

The editor ideally wants a clear decision from the reviewers as to whether the paper should be accepted or rejected. If there is no consensus among the reviewers then the editor may send your paper out to more reviewers to better judge whether or not to accept the paper.

If you’ve got a lot of reviewers on your paper it isn’t necessarily that the reviewers disagreed about accepting your paper.

You can also end up with lots of reviewers in the following circumstance:

• The editor asks a certain academic to review the paper but doesn’t get a response from them
• The editor asks another academic to step in
• The initial reviewer then responds

Next thing you know your work is being scrutinised by extra pairs of eyes!

As mentioned in the intro, my first paper ended up with five reviewers!

Potential Journal Responses

Assuming that the paper passes the editor’s initial evaluation and is sent out for peer-review, here are the potential decisions you may receive:

• Reject the paper. Sadly the editor and reviewers decided against publishing your work. Hopefully they’ll have included feedback which you can incorporate into your submission to another journal. I’ve had some rejections and the reviewer comments were genuinely useful.
• Accept the paper with major revisions . Good news: with some more work your paper could get published. If you make all the changes that the reviewers suggest, and they’re happy with your responses, then it should get accepted. Some people see major revisions as a disappointment but it doesn’t have to be.
• Accept the paper with minor revisions. This is like getting a major revisions response but better! Generally minor revisions can be addressed quickly and often come down to clarifying things for the reviewers: rewording, addressing minor concerns etc and don’t require any more experiments or analysis. You stand a really good chance of getting the paper published if you’ve been given a minor revisions result.
• Accept the paper with no revisions . I’m not sure that this ever really happens, but it is potentially possible if the reviewers are already completely happy with your paper!

Keen to know more about academic publishing? My series on publishing is now available as a free eBook. It includes my experiences being a peer reviewer. Click the image below for access.

Example Peer Review Comments & Addressing Reviewer Feedback

If your paper has been accepted but requires revisions, the editor will forward to you the comments and concerns that the reviewers raised. You’ll have to address these points so that the reviewers are satisfied your work is of a publishable standard.

It is extremely important to take this stage seriously. If you don’t do a thorough job then the reviewers won’t recommend that your paper is accepted for publication!

You’ll have to put together a resubmission with your co-authors and there are two crucial things you must do:

• Make revisions to your manuscript based off reviewer comments
• Reply to the reviewers, telling them the changes you’ve made and potentially changes you’ve not made in instances where you disagree with them. Read on to see some example peer review comments and how I replied!

Before making any changes to your actual paper, I suggest having a thorough read through the reviewer comments.

Once you’ve read through the comments you might be keen to dive straight in and make the changes in your paper. Instead, I actually suggest firstly drafting your reply to the reviewers.

Why start with the reply to reviewers? Well in a way it is actually potentially more important than the changes you’re making in the manuscript.

Imagine when a reviewer receives your response to their comments: you want them to be able to read your reply document and be satisfied that their queries have largely been addressed without even having to open the updated draft of your manuscript. If you do a good job with the replies, the reviewers will be better placed to recommend the paper be accepted!

By starting with your reply to the reviewers you’ll also clarify for yourself what changes actually have to be made to the paper.

So let’s now cover how to reply to the reviewers.

1. Replying to Journal Reviewers

It is so important to make sure you do a solid job addressing your reviewers’ feedback in your reply document. If you leave anything unanswered you’re asking for trouble, which in this case means either a rejection or another round of revisions: though some journals only give you one shot! Therefore make sure you’re thorough, not just with making the changes but demonstrating the changes in your replies.

It’s no good putting in the work to revise your paper but not evidence it in your reply to the reviewers!

There may be points that reviewers raise which don’t appear to necessitate making changes to your manuscript, but this is rarely the case. Even for comments or concerns they raise which are already addressed in the paper, clearly those areas could be clarified or highlighted to ensure that future readers don’t get confused.

How to Reply to Journal Reviewers

Some journals will request a certain format for how you should structure a reply to the reviewers. If so this should be included in the email you receive from the journal’s editor. If there are no certain requirements here is what I do:

• Copy and paste all replies into a document.
• Separate out each point they raise onto a separate line. Often they’ll already be nicely numbered but sometimes they actually still raise separate issues in one block of text. I suggest separating it all out so that each query is addressed separately.
• Form your reply for each point that they raise. I start by just jotting down notes for roughly how I’ll respond. Once I’m happy with the key message I’ll write it up into a scripted reply.
• Finally, go through and format it nicely and include line number references for the changes you’ve made in the manuscript.

By the end you’ll have a document that looks something like:

Reviewer 1 Point 1: [Quote the reviewer’s comment] Response 1: [Address point 1 and say what revisions you’ve made to the paper] Point 2: [Quote the reviewer’s comment] Response 2: [Address point 2 and say what revisions you’ve made to the paper] Then repeat this for all comments by all reviewers!

What To Actually Include In Your Reply To Reviewers

For every single point raised by the reviewers, you should do the following:

• Address their concern: Do you agree or disagree with the reviewer’s comment? Either way, make your position clear and justify any differences of opinion. If the reviewer wants more clarity on an issue, provide it. It is really important that you actually address their concerns in your reply. Don’t just say “Thanks, we’ve changed the text”. Actually include everything they want to know in your reply. Yes this means you’ll be repeating things between your reply and the revisions to the paper but that’s fine.
• Reference changes to your manuscript in your reply. Once you’ve answered the reviewer’s question, you must show that you’re actually using this feedback to revise the manuscript. The best way to do this is to refer to where the changes have been made throughout the text. I personally do this by include line references. Make sure you save this right until the end once you’ve finished making changes!

Example Peer Review Comments & Author Replies

In order to understand how this works in practice I’d suggest reading through a few real-life example peer review comments and replies.

The good news is that published papers often now include peer-review records, including the reviewer comments and authors’ replies. So here are two feedback examples from my own papers:

Example Peer Review: Paper 1

Quantifying 3D Strain in Scaffold Implants for Regenerative Medicine, J. Clark et al. 2020 – Available here

This paper was reviewed by two academics and was given major revisions. The journal gave us only 10 days to get them done, which was a bit stressful!

• Reviewer Comments
• My reply to Reviewer 1
• My reply to Reviewer 2

One round of reviews wasn’t enough for Reviewer 2…

• My reply to Reviewer 2 – ROUND 2

Thankfully it was accepted after the second round of review, and actually ended up being selected for this accolade, whatever most notable means?!

Nice to see our recent paper highlighted as one of the most notable articles, great start to the week! Thanks @Materials_mdpi 😀 #openaccess & available here: https://t.co/AKWLcyUtpC @ICBiomechanics @julianrjones @saman_tavana pic.twitter.com/ciOX2vftVL — Jeff Clark (@savvy_scientist) December 7, 2020

Example Peer Review: Paper 2

Exploratory Full-Field Mechanical Analysis across the Osteochondral Tissue—Biomaterial Interface in an Ovine Model, J. Clark et al. 2020 – Available here

This paper was reviewed by three academics and was given minor revisions.

• My reply to Reviewer 3

I’m pleased to say it was accepted after the first round of revisions 🙂

Things To Be Aware Of When Replying To Peer Review Comments

• Generally, try to make a revision to your paper for every comment. No matter what the reviewer’s comment is, you can probably make a change to the paper which will improve your manuscript. For example, if the reviewer seems confused about something, improve the clarity in your paper. If you disagree with the reviewer, include better justification for your choices in the paper. It is far more favourable to take on board the reviewer’s feedback and act on it with actual changes to your draft.
• Organise your responses. Sometimes journals will request the reply to each reviewer is sent in a separate document. Unless they ask for it this way I stick them all together in one document with subheadings eg “Reviewer 1” etc.
• Make sure you address each and every question. If you dodge anything then the reviewer will have a valid reason to reject your resubmission. You don’t need to agree with them on every point but you do need to justify your position.
• Be courteous. No need to go overboard with compliments but stay polite as reviewers are providing constructive feedback. I like to add in “We thank the reviewer for their suggestion” every so often where it genuinely warrants it. Remember that written language doesn’t always carry tone very well, so rather than risk coming off as abrasive if I don’t agree with the reviewer’s suggestion I’d rather be generous with friendliness throughout the reply.

2. How to Make Revisions To Your Paper

Once you’ve drafted your replies to the reviewers, you’ve actually done a lot of the ground work for making changes to the paper. Remember, you are making changes to the paper based off the reviewer comments so you should regularly be referring back to the comments to ensure you’re not getting sidetracked.

Reviewers could request modifications to any part of your paper. You may need to collect more data, do more analysis, reformat some figures, add in more references or discussion or any number of other revisions! So I can’t really help with everything, even so here is some general advice:

• Use tracked-changes. This is so important. The editor and reviewers need to be able to see every single change you’ve made compared to your first submission. Sometimes the journal will want a clean copy too but always start with tracked-changes enabled then just save a clean copy afterwards.
• Be thorough . Try to not leave any opportunity for the reviewers to not recommend your paper to be published. Any chance you have to satisfy their concerns, take it. For example if the reviewers are concerned about sample size and you have the means to include other experiments, consider doing so. If they want to see more justification or references, be thorough. To be clear again, this doesn’t necessarily mean making changes you don’t believe in. If you don’t want to make a change, you can justify your position to the reviewers. Either way, be thorough.
• Use your reply to the reviewers as a guide. In your draft reply to the reviewers you should have already included a lot of details which can be incorporated into the text. If they raised a concern, you should be able to go and find references which address the concern. This reference should appear both in your reply and in the manuscript. As mentioned above I always suggest starting with the reply, then simply adding these details to your manuscript once you know what needs doing.

Putting Together Your Paper Revision Submission

• Once you’ve drafted your reply to the reviewers and revised manuscript, make sure to give sufficient time for your co-authors to give feedback. Also give yourself time afterwards to make changes based off of their feedback. I ideally give a week for the feedback and another few days to make the changes.
• When you’re satisfied that you’ve addressed the reviewer comments, you can think about submitting it. The journal may ask for another letter to the editor, if not I simply add to the top of the reply to reviewers something like:

“Dear [Editor], We are grateful to the reviewer for their positive and constructive comments that have led to an improved manuscript.  Here, we address their concerns/suggestions and have tracked changes throughout the revised manuscript.”

Once you’re ready to submit:

• Double check that you’ve done everything that the editor requested in their email
• Double check that the file names and formats are as required
• Triple check you’ve addressed the reviewer comments adequately
• Click submit and bask in relief!

You won’t always get the paper accepted, but if you’re thorough and present your revisions clearly then you’ll put yourself in a really good position. Remember to try as hard as possible to satisfy the reviewers’ concerns to minimise any opportunity for them to not accept your revisions!

Best of luck!

I really hope that this post has been useful to you and that the example peer review section has given you some ideas for how to respond. I know how daunting it can be to reply to reviewers, and it is really important to try to do a good job and give yourself the best chances of success. If you’d like to read other posts in my academic publishing series you can find them here:

Blog post series: Writing an academic journal paper

Subscribe below to stay up to date with new posts in the academic publishing series and other PhD content.

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)

Related Posts

How to Master Data Management in Research

25th April 2024 27th April 2024

Thesis Title: Examples and Suggestions from a PhD Grad

23rd February 2024 23rd February 2024

How to Stay Healthy as a Student

25th January 2024 25th January 2024

2 Comments on “My Complete Guide to Academic Peer Review: Example Comments & How to Make Paper Revisions”

Excellent article! Thank you for the inspiration!

No worries at all, thanks for your kind comment!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Privacy Overview

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections

How to Receive and Respond to Peer Review Feedback

A thoughtful, thorough approach to your revision response now can save you time in further rounds of review.

You’ve just spent months completing your study, writing up the results and submitting to your top-choice journal. Now the feedback is in and it’s time to revise. Set out a clear plan for your response to keep yourself on-track and ensure edits don’t fall through the cracks.

Keep Calm and Take Stock

From time to time, you’re going to get frustrating comments. Even though it may sometimes feel like the reviewers haven’t spent enough time with your work, are overly-critical, or lack the right expertise, remember that a lot can get lost in translation. Always start by assuming reviewers have the best intentions.

Bear in mind that the goal of peer review feedback is to verify and strengthen your work so that it  is ultimately a more effective communication. Reviewers are a good representation of the journal’s general readership and their reactions can help you craft a better, clearer publication for your audience.

After reviewing your manuscript comments, it might be helpful to take a step back and clear your head. When you come back to it, ask yourself: what are the fundamental issues the reviewer wants me to address?

Set a Plan for Revisions and Response

Don’t lose track of important changes you intend to make. Making a plan for revising and crafting your response to the reviewers can help you organize your steps, get a better idea of what work needs to be done, and make the process run more smoothly.

1. Start a list of essential vs. unessential requests to prioritize your work.

The editor’s note may help you see which edits are required to meet the journal’s standards. Don’t disregard the unessential list, however. While these edits may be “nice to have” rather than “required,” they can strengthen your work for that journal’s typical audience. If you have time and resources to tackle these, do so. 

2. Decide whether you’ll need time to conduct additional experiments.

Don’t shy away from providing additional data. If you already have the data requested by the reviewers, but don’t feel it fits the scope of your work, you can include these in your response as a show of good faith, and indicate in your letter why you think they should be left off the published article. If you need extra time for your revision to complete the additional research, make sure you let your editor know.

3. Make sure you have a system for responding to each comment, and demonstrating your changes.

This might sound tedious, but a clear, point-by-point response can save you time in subsequent rounds of review. Use track changes to show your edits and/or indicate line numbers in your response where the requested change can be found in the manuscript.  

4. Don’t ignore any comments .

Even if you’ve decided not to make a change, your response to the reviewers should explain why you’ve done so. You may need to provide additional evidence as to why this isn’t relevant. That’s OK. Your goal here is to make sure reviewers have enough clarity of your work to understand your thinking. Without an adequate reason, reviewers may request the same change in subsequent rounds of review.

Tip: Build in a little extra time for a final review

Once you’ve updated and revised your manuscript, give yourself a little lee way—let the paper rest for a day or two and give it another read, checking to make sure that your edits make sense with the rest of the paper. For more tips, visit our guide to editing your work.

Conflicting Feedback

It’s almost inevitable that you will encounter reviewers who disagree on a course of action, or even an editor who disagrees with the reviewers. Here are some tips for navigating each case:

Reviewer vs Edito r

In general, the editor should be able to provide commentary more closely aligned with the journal’s scope and editorial policies. If the editor disagrees on a suggested edit, you should cite the editor’s comments in your response to the reviewers.

Reviewer vs Reviewer 

• When two reviewers offer conflicting advice, your editor may be able to provide guidance as to the journal’s standards, and which course of action they feel is more appropriate. As before, be sure to cite the editor’s advice in your response.
• If the editor hasn’t provided clarity in their response, ask a colleague familiar with your work and check in with your coauthors for a second opinion. 
• Rely on yourself. Ultimately, the decision to make any change is up to you. Provide a clear and defensible response to reviewers, citing your reasons for complying or not complying with a suggested edit, so that the reviewers and the editor understand your decision.  

Writing Your Response

Include a cover letter. Keep this short, but do call out important information about your changes and any points you wish to clarify further. If you found reviewer advice particularly helpful, thank them for their thoughtful commentary! Here’s a quick template you can follow:

Thank you for taking the time to review and comment upon our manuscript, %%Manuscript Number%%, %%Title%%. We found the advice constructive and have incorporated many of the suggestions into our revision… We’ve responded to each comment individually below and would like to draw your attention to…. Thank you again for your thoughtful comments… Sincerely, %%Name%%

You can also find a number of full  cover letter examples online for inspiration — like this one from the APA Style blog. 

Assume both the editor and reviewers will see everything that you write. If you’ve submitted to a journal with an open peer review process, your readers could see your comments as well

Keep your responses clear, unemotional, and easy to follow. Respond in-line to every comment, indicating line numbers where a change can be found

Reviewer Comment 1 : Suggestion for additional charts. Response: We have not added an additional chart as the requested data can already be found in Figure 1. Instead, we’ve adjusted the colors and weighting to make this line clearer. Reviewer Comment 2: Suggested clarification or correction. Response : We have made this change in line 44.

Write your response, take a break, and come back to it. Re-read your comments and make sure they come across calm and professional. If you’re struggling to come up with the right way to say something, try these reviewer response examples for inspiration. 

The contents of the Peer Review Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

The contents of the Writing Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…

• Tel: +81-3-5541-4400 (Monday–Friday, 09:30–18:00)

Giving an effective peer review: sample framework and comments

The system of peer-reviewed journals requires that academics review papers written by other academics, that is, papers written by their peers. We have previously discussed peer review generally ( Why do the rules and conventions of academic publishing keep changing and how can researchers stay current? ) and how authors can effectively respond to peer review ( Writing effective response letters to reviewers: Tips and a template ). This article will cover the other side: being a reviewer.

Here, we'll look at the basic tenets of peer review, and we've provided a sample framework to help new reviewers give comments that will help authors strengthen their papers.

Basic tenets of peer reviewing:

There are 5 basic tenets that should be kept in mind:

• Decline the review if you have any conflicts of interest (COIs).
• Remember that you're advising the journal editor, not making the decision about whether to accept or reject.
• Try to be helpful and always respectful to the author.
• Maintain confidentiality of the paper contents.
• Decline the review if you are too busy, or not familiar enough with the topic, to complete a proper review.

Peer reviews are intended to be impartial (unbiased), and so anyone asked to be a reviewer should consider, before accepting, whether they have any COIs. Anything that could make you, as a reviewer, consider the paper more or less favorably because of your relationship with the author is a COI. You should decline to review, or at minimum disclose to the journal editor, papers written by (a) past co-authors of yours, (b) members of your department, (c) your students or mentors, (d) personal friends, and (e) professional rivals. You should also decline if you will gain any potential financial or personal benefits from publication of the work. If you are unsure about whether a conflict of interest exists, check the journal's guidelines or with the journal editor. As examples of COI policies, Elsevier has a general factsheet on COIs and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors provides information about peer reviewer responsibilities .

The reviewer acts as an advisor to the journal editor. Because of this, the review should be more than a simple "accept" or "reject". When writing a review, you should describe the reasons for the recommendation so that the editor can make an informed decision. It is far more important to comment on the academic content of a paper than on grammar and punctuation. However, if the language is too poor to understand the contents adequately, then alert the journal editor. See below for a sample framework that will assist you in ensuring that you've covered the most important points in your review.

The review will be sent to the author of the paper. Because of this, reviewers are in a strong position to advise the author on how the paper could be strengthened. Whether you are recommending acceptance or rejection, the author could benefit from your feedback and advice. One particular caution is when you want to suggest the authors cite your own papers—do this sparingly. The review should be intended to help the author, not the reviewer. Finally, reviews should be respectful in tone. Unfortunately, we've all seen derogatory and unhelpful reviewer comments at times, which do not help the author. Peer review should be collegial and respectful.

Reviewers receive submitted papers with the understanding that they are handling confidential communications. As such, they should not discuss the review or disclose any of its content to third parties. Reviewers also should not use their knowledge of the work they are reviewing to further their own personal interests.

Reviewers who are not able to provide a proper review, due to lack of time or lack of expertise in the area covered by the paper, should decline the review.

Get featured articles and other author resources sent to you in English, Japanese, or both languages via our monthly newsletter.

Sample Framework for Your Reviewer Comments

Many journals provide reviewers with a form to fill out during review, but the framework below can be used in other cases.

Describe the basic contribution of the paper. This should be a few sentences on the topic of the paper. Beginning with this helps the journal editor and lets the author know that you've understood the paper.

"This paper discusses _______________. The main contribution of the paper is ____________."

Give your recommendation. You can use one of the following sentences.

"I recommend that this paper be accepted."

"I recommend that this paper be accepted after minor revision."

"I recommend that this paper not be accepted without major revision."

"I recommend that this paper be rejected."

Give your reasons for your recommendation. Label these as "major comments". A few examples are given to the right.

Major comments:

• The statistical analysis in this paper is suitable/unsuitable for….
• In terms of experimental technique, this paper is conventional/novel, and so…
• The Methods section does not clearly explain…
• The results obtained will be useful in…
• Some of the fundamental/recent papers in the field are not cited, among these…
• I would like to see some discussion of the findings of the papers in relation to recent findings and developments in ______.

Finally, give some additional comments about the paper. This is where you can note problems with spelling and/or grammar, suggest changes to figures and tables, and make other specific comments. Label these as "minor comments". A few examples are to the right.

Minor comments:

• In several places, you've used the term _____, but it seems you mean _____.
• In some of the figures, the legends are too small to be legible.
• On page ____, it is stated that _____, but the paper by Smith et al. states that ______. Can you comment on this disparity?
• Have you thought about testing this with _____________?

We hope you've found these tips useful. We currently offer support for new and experienced reviewers in a number of ways, including by translating their comments to English and by editing their English comments to ensure that the authors receiving the review have high-quality, well-worded comments that help them strengthen their manuscripts.

Also, if you have any questions about writing effective reviewer comments, please do let us know. We're happy to support you in this important academic task.

Stay up to date

Our monthly newsletter offers valuable tips on writing and presenting your research most effectively, as well as advice on avoiding or resolving common problems that authors face.

Looking for subject-specialists?

Your research represents you, and your career reflects thousands of hours of your time.

Here at ThinkSCIENCE, our translation and editing represent us, and our reputation reflects thousands of published papers and millions of corrections and improvements.

• SpringerLink shop

Revising your paper and responding to reviewer comments

When revising your manuscript and responding to peer review comments:

• Address all points raised by the editor and reviewers
• Describe the revisions to your manuscript in your response letter
• Perform any additional experiments or analyses the reviewers recommend (unless you feel that they would not make your paper better; if this is the case, explain why in your response letter)
• Provide a polite and scientific rebuttal to any points or comments you disagree with
• Differentiate between reviewer comments and your responses in your letter
• Clearly show the major revisions in the text, either with a different color text, by highlighting the changes, or with Microsoft Word’s Track Changes feature
• Return the revised manuscript and response letter within the time period the editor tells you

Reviewer comment: “In your analysis of the data you have chosen to use a somewhat obscure fitting function (regression). In my opinion, a simple Gaussian function would have sufficed. Moreover, the results would be more instructive and easier to compare to previous results.”

Response in agreement with the reviewer: “We agree with the reviewer’s assessment of the analysis. Our tailored function does make it impossible to fully interpret the data in terms of the prevailing theories. In addition, in its current form, we agree it would be difficult to tell that this measurement constitutes a significant improvement over previously reported values. We have therefore re-analyzed the data using a Gaussian fitting function.”

Response disagreeing with the reviewer: “We agree with the reviewer that a simple Gaussian fit would facilitate comparison with the results of other studies. However, our tailored function allows for the analysis of the data in terms of the Smith model [Smith et al, 1998]. We have added two sentences to the paper (page 3, paragraph 2) to explain the use of this function and Smith’s model.”

Note that in both comments (agreeing and disagreeing) the author is polite and shows respect for the reviewer’s opinion. Also, in both circumstances the author makes a change to the manuscript that addresses the reviewer’s question.

Remember, the reviewer is probably a highly knowledgeable person. If their suggestion is incorrect, it is likely because they misunderstood your manuscript, indicating that you should make your text clearer.

Use our Response letter template to make writing your reply easier.

--- Commentary ---

Original URL: http://www.springer.com/authors/journal+authors/journal+authors+academy?SGWID=0-1726414-12-837830-0

Picture Remarks:

Responding to reviewers’ comments: tips on handling challenging comments

• Lecture Text
• Published: 21 June 2022
• Volume 8 , article number  16 , ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Shamala Balan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8424-7729 1  

1514 Accesses

Explore all metrics

The goal of every author is to have their research work published. In the process of publishing a peer-reviewed article, authors are often required to revise their original manuscript based on the comments from the reviewers. Although some of these comments are straightforward and concise, others are conflicting and unclear and, as such, authors may find it challenging to plan and carry out the revision as well as compose the accompanying response letter. In this article I outline eight challenges in handling reviewers’ comments that may be useful for novice authors. In general, authors will always benefit from adopting a positive attitude towards reviewers’ comments and make the effort to improve their manuscript.

Graphical abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Writing as Communicating with Reviewers: Strategies for Anticipating and Addressing Insightful and Skeptical Reviews

Empowering peer reviewers with a checklist to improve transparency

The Journal Editor as Academic Custodian

Scholz F (2022) Writing and publishing a scientific paper. ChemTexts 8:8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40828-022-00160-7

Article   Google Scholar  

McGrail MR, Rickard CM, Jones R (2006) Publish or perish: a systematic review of interventions to increase academic publication rates. High Educ Res Dev 25:19–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360500453053

Johnston J, Wilson S, Rix E, Pit SW (2014) Publish or perish: strategies to help rural early career researchers increase publication output. Rural Remote Health 14:372–377

Google Scholar  

Kelly J, Sadeghieh T, Adeli K (2014) Peer review in scientific publications: benefits, critiques, and a survival guide. EJIFCC 25:227–243

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Annesley TM (2011) Top 10 tips for responding to reviewer and editor comments. Clin Chem 57:551–554

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Gabbaï FP, Chirik PJ (2018) Dos and don’ts: thoughts on how to respond to reviewer comments. Organometallics 37:2655

Ensom MHH (2011) Improving the chances of manuscript acceptance: how to address peer reviewers’ comments. Can J Hosp Pharm 64:389–391

PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Nahata MC, Sorkin EM (2019) Responding to manuscript reviewer and editor comments. Ann Pharmacother 53:959–961

Hiemstra PS (2018) How to write a response to the reviewers of your manuscript. Breathe 14:319–321

Hunt MJ, Ochmanska M, Cilulko-Dolega J (2019) How to write an effective response letter to reviewers. Med Sci Pulse 13:60–63

Silbiger NJ, Stubler AD (2019) Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM. PeerJ 7:e8247. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8247

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Curran-Everett D (2017) The thrill of the paper, the agony of the review. Adv Physiol Educ 41:338–340. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00069.2017

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Mavrogenis AF, Quaile A, Scarlat MM (2020) The good, the bad and the rude peer-review. Int Orthop 44:413–415

Hites RA (2021) How to convince an editor to accept your paper quickly. Sci Total Environ 798:149243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149243

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Johnson SH (1996) Dealing with conflicting reviewers’ comments. Nurse Author Ed 6:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-4910.1996.tb00365.x

Adib S, Nimehchisalem V (2021) Reasons for manuscript rejection at internal and peer-review stages. Int J Educ Lit Stud 9:2–8

Kim SD, Petru M, Gielecki J, Loukas M (2019) Causes of manuscript rejection and how to handle a rejected manuscript. In: Shoja M, Arynchyna A, Loukas M, D'Antoni AV, Buerger SM, Karl  M et al (eds) A guide to the scientific career. Hoboken, Wiley, pp 419–422

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Ware M (2008) Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives. Citeseer.  http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.214.9676&rep=rep1&type=pdf . Accessed 17 May 2022

Ralph P (2016) Practical suggestions for improving scholarly peer review quality and reducing cycle times. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 38:13

Rasmussen SC (2020) Peer review-critical feedback or necessary evil? Substantia 4:5–6

Agarwal R (2013) Editorial notes. Inf Syst Res 24:1–2. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2013.0476

Street C, Ward KW (2019) Cognitive bias in the peer review process: understanding a source of friction between reviewers and researchers. ACM SIGMIS Database Adv Inf Syst 50:52–70

Barroga E (2020) Innovative strategies for peer review. J Korean Med Sci 35:e138–e138. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e138

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Pharmacy Department, Tunku Azizah Hospital, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, Kampung Baru, 50300, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Shamala Balan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shamala Balan .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Balan, S. Responding to reviewers’ comments: tips on handling challenging comments. ChemTexts 8 , 16 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40828-022-00167-0

Download citation

Received : 11 February 2022

Accepted : 07 June 2022

Published : 21 June 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40828-022-00167-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Peer review process
• Reviewers’ comments
• Authors’ responses
• Tactfulness
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Parents & Guardians
• Faculty & Staff

BC.EDU LINKS

• Boston College
• Campus Life
• Jesuit, Catholic
• Academic Calendar
• BC Magazine
• Directories
• Offices, Services, Resources
• Agora Portal
• Maps & Directions
• Writing Sample Feedback

Examples of Submission Feedback

The following are actual responses to some of our recent submissions to the Online Writing Lab, although the names have been changed to maintain the anonymity of student writers. You can expect similarly global-oriented comments and suggestions for developing your own work. Of course, length and type of feedback vary between individual tutors and between essay submissions.

Dear Rachel: I think you touch on some really nice ideas in this paper, which I'll talk about in a minute, but first I want to address one general concern I had about your writing. You have a tendency to spend too much time summarizing the plot--this is time when you could be advancing your argument. You don't need to tell your reader what happens in the story; you can assume that he or she already knows. For example, look at this paragraph: [...] Everything that I've noted with square brackets is plot summary. The sentence that begins "Feeling rejected, the creature wanders away..." is borderline because you're making a judgment about the creature's motivations, but in general you shouldn't spend time repeating the events of the story. The second part of this paragraph is much better in that you're talking about motivations and making arguments. I think you've got some really interesting ideas in this paper, particularly in your fifth and sixth paragraphs, but you need to expand upon them. For example, you might spend more time talking about Millhauser's rationale--WHY does he think the monster should have been presented as a brutal beast throughout? What would be lost in such a presentation? Why is it better that Shelley shows the monster in terms of growth and progression? You introduce this idea in your introduction, arguing that Shelley is deliberately playing with the reader's sympathies, for the monster and for Frankenstein. Could you say more about HOW she does this? What is the effect of the reader's divided sympathies? Where does the sympathy lie at the end of the book? Why might Shelley be interested in this? In general, what is the value of making the creature sympathetic? I hope you found some of the questions I've raised valuable. You've touched on some interesting issues in this paper, and there is definitely plenty of room for you to develop them even further. If you have any questions about anything I've said, or any further questions, please feel free to write back to me. Good luck with your paper and thank you for submitting to the OWL!

Mark, Thank you for submitting your paper to the OWL; I am a Political Science major and very much enjoyed reading it. Below you will find a few suggestions for how to strengthen your writing during the revision process. You wrote that your major concerns with your paper were "abstract prose" and "elementary points." I did not find your arguments to be too simplistic or "elementary," nor did your language seem too abstract. It did, however, lack clarity and definition at some points. Specifically, there are some concepts that you repeat throughout your paper but never define. One is the "republican role." It may be that your instructor discussed this idea at length in class, or that Machiavelli does in his Discourses on Livy, but there is no such discussion in your paper. A stronger paper would define the proper role of a leader in a republican state from the beginning. Some theoretical questions you may want to consider on this point include: what is the difference between a republican leader and a tyrannical leader? How can one distinguish between the two? Why is it important to prevent against tyranny? Is the leader subservient to the will of the people? Is the leader responsible to anyone? Where does the leader draw his power or right to govern from? What does it mean to "be subordinate to a republican role"? What qualities are valuable in a leader? Which ones are dangerous? It may be beneficial to read over your paper with a critical eye looking for vague concepts. What ideas do you reference but never fully explain? Do you take certain concepts for granted? If you find such problems, generating a list of questions to focus your idea (as above) can be a helpful exercise. There were two more areas I found especially lacking in definition: the concept of tyranny and a "short time in office." Thank you again for submitting your paper to the OWL. Your arguments are strong and I hope my comments will help to fine-tune your essay. Please feel free to e-mail me for further assistance or clarification. Good luck with your revisions!

Thanks for submitting your essay-I enjoyed reading it. I hope my comments help you in your revision process.

Your personal narrative is without a doubt at its best when you give vivid details of the day from your perspective, which is, as you describe, a very unique one. The "chalky taste" of the air, for instance, is a detail that really brings the scene to life.

You asked for help with structure, and I think the most sensible structure in this case is a chronological one. It's fine to start with a vivid scene to land the reader in the event, but then it makes sense to step back and tell the story as it happened. To help you accomplish this end, you might consider listing each of the major points you want to cover and then turning them into an outline. It might help, too, to think about the overall message you want to convey. Then make sure all of your details contribute to that message.

As for constructive comments, you never really explain why you were at Ground Zero on September 12. Do you just happen to live nearby? Did you have any special connection to the firefighters or the victims? Why did you decide to help out?

I would also be careful of the very general statements you use to sum up the essay, such as , "That day brought to my attention a side of humanity that had lay dormant in my mind. That moment in time showed me that people have the capacity to act unselfishly." It's best to convey your point through examples rather than summation-the old advice to "show not tell."

It takes a lot of courage to tackle in an essay the events of September 11 and the days following, but I think you have a great perspective, and the ability to look beyond the chaos to the details of the scene.

Feel free to write back as you revise this piece. I'd be glad to talk more about it.

Hello, Angela,

Your paper is coherent, well-organized, and very informative. You do a nice job of incorporating various theorists and applying their ideas to the phenomenon of AHANA. You also do a good job of considering "the opposing viewpoint" and introducing relevant arguments to substantiate your position.

One area I would suggest giving a little more attention to how exactly AHANA functions. You mention that the term was coined as an alternative to the more negative term "minority," and that the group exists to "promote understanding..." etc. But I still want to know more about HOW the group works to achieve their goals; do they sponsor events on campus? hold workshops? etc. You did an effective job of explaining the philosophy of the group, but I would be interested in seeing just a little bit more of how it works in action, so to speak.

The second point is that you might want to explain in greater detail how subjective experiences shape the need for a group such as AHANA. You mention that racial and cultural differences do exist and that the "differing perspectives caused by these distinctions exist regardless of whether they are acknowledged." This is a very integral part of your argument, so maybe developing it further would be helpful. I realize it's a very broad concept to try and condense within your paper, but focusing on explicating that part might be helpful. Overall, I think you have a very strong paper that seems to fulfill the parameters of the assignment quite well.

Book Reviews

What this handout is about.

This handout will help you write a book review, a report or essay that offers a critical perspective on a text. It offers a process and suggests some strategies for writing book reviews.

What is a review?

A review is a critical evaluation of a text, event, object, or phenomenon. Reviews can consider books, articles, entire genres or fields of literature, architecture, art, fashion, restaurants, policies, exhibitions, performances, and many other forms. This handout will focus on book reviews. For a similar assignment, see our handout on literature reviews .

Above all, a review makes an argument. The most important element of a review is that it is a commentary, not merely a summary. It allows you to enter into dialogue and discussion with the work’s creator and with other audiences. You can offer agreement or disagreement and identify where you find the work exemplary or deficient in its knowledge, judgments, or organization. You should clearly state your opinion of the work in question, and that statement will probably resemble other types of academic writing, with a thesis statement, supporting body paragraphs, and a conclusion.

Typically, reviews are brief. In newspapers and academic journals, they rarely exceed 1000 words, although you may encounter lengthier assignments and extended commentaries. In either case, reviews need to be succinct. While they vary in tone, subject, and style, they share some common features:

• First, a review gives the reader a concise summary of the content. This includes a relevant description of the topic as well as its overall perspective, argument, or purpose.
• Second, and more importantly, a review offers a critical assessment of the content. This involves your reactions to the work under review: what strikes you as noteworthy, whether or not it was effective or persuasive, and how it enhanced your understanding of the issues at hand.
• Finally, in addition to analyzing the work, a review often suggests whether or not the audience would appreciate it.

Becoming an expert reviewer: three short examples

Reviewing can be a daunting task. Someone has asked for your opinion about something that you may feel unqualified to evaluate. Who are you to criticize Toni Morrison’s new book if you’ve never written a novel yourself, much less won a Nobel Prize? The point is that someone—a professor, a journal editor, peers in a study group—wants to know what you think about a particular work. You may not be (or feel like) an expert, but you need to pretend to be one for your particular audience. Nobody expects you to be the intellectual equal of the work’s creator, but your careful observations can provide you with the raw material to make reasoned judgments. Tactfully voicing agreement and disagreement, praise and criticism, is a valuable, challenging skill, and like many forms of writing, reviews require you to provide concrete evidence for your assertions.

Consider the following brief book review written for a history course on medieval Europe by a student who is fascinated with beer:

Judith Bennett’s Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England: Women’s Work in a Changing World, 1300-1600, investigates how women used to brew and sell the majority of ale drunk in England. Historically, ale and beer (not milk, wine, or water) were important elements of the English diet. Ale brewing was low-skill and low status labor that was complimentary to women’s domestic responsibilities. In the early fifteenth century, brewers began to make ale with hops, and they called this new drink “beer.” This technique allowed brewers to produce their beverages at a lower cost and to sell it more easily, although women generally stopped brewing once the business became more profitable.

The student describes the subject of the book and provides an accurate summary of its contents. But the reader does not learn some key information expected from a review: the author’s argument, the student’s appraisal of the book and its argument, and whether or not the student would recommend the book. As a critical assessment, a book review should focus on opinions, not facts and details. Summary should be kept to a minimum, and specific details should serve to illustrate arguments.

Now consider a review of the same book written by a slightly more opinionated student:

Judith Bennett’s Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England: Women’s Work in a Changing World, 1300-1600 was a colossal disappointment. I wanted to know about the rituals surrounding drinking in medieval England: the songs, the games, the parties. Bennett provided none of that information. I liked how the book showed ale and beer brewing as an economic activity, but the reader gets lost in the details of prices and wages. I was more interested in the private lives of the women brewsters. The book was divided into eight long chapters, and I can’t imagine why anyone would ever want to read it.

There’s no shortage of judgments in this review! But the student does not display a working knowledge of the book’s argument. The reader has a sense of what the student expected of the book, but no sense of what the author herself set out to prove. Although the student gives several reasons for the negative review, those examples do not clearly relate to each other as part of an overall evaluation—in other words, in support of a specific thesis. This review is indeed an assessment, but not a critical one.

Here is one final review of the same book:

One of feminism’s paradoxes—one that challenges many of its optimistic histories—is how patriarchy remains persistent over time. While Judith Bennett’s Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England: Women’s Work in a Changing World, 1300-1600 recognizes medieval women as historical actors through their ale brewing, it also shows that female agency had its limits with the advent of beer. I had assumed that those limits were religious and political, but Bennett shows how a “patriarchal equilibrium” shut women out of economic life as well. Her analysis of women’s wages in ale and beer production proves that a change in women’s work does not equate to a change in working women’s status. Contemporary feminists and historians alike should read Bennett’s book and think twice when they crack open their next brewsky.

This student’s review avoids the problems of the previous two examples. It combines balanced opinion and concrete example, a critical assessment based on an explicitly stated rationale, and a recommendation to a potential audience. The reader gets a sense of what the book’s author intended to demonstrate. Moreover, the student refers to an argument about feminist history in general that places the book in a specific genre and that reaches out to a general audience. The example of analyzing wages illustrates an argument, the analysis engages significant intellectual debates, and the reasons for the overall positive review are plainly visible. The review offers criteria, opinions, and support with which the reader can agree or disagree.

Developing an assessment: before you write

There is no definitive method to writing a review, although some critical thinking about the work at hand is necessary before you actually begin writing. Thus, writing a review is a two-step process: developing an argument about the work under consideration, and making that argument as you write an organized and well-supported draft. See our handout on argument .

What follows is a series of questions to focus your thinking as you dig into the work at hand. While the questions specifically consider book reviews, you can easily transpose them to an analysis of performances, exhibitions, and other review subjects. Don’t feel obligated to address each of the questions; some will be more relevant than others to the book in question.

• What is the thesis—or main argument—of the book? If the author wanted you to get one idea from the book, what would it be? How does it compare or contrast to the world you know? What has the book accomplished?
• What exactly is the subject or topic of the book? Does the author cover the subject adequately? Does the author cover all aspects of the subject in a balanced fashion? What is the approach to the subject (topical, analytical, chronological, descriptive)?
• How does the author support their argument? What evidence do they use to prove their point? Do you find that evidence convincing? Why or why not? Does any of the author’s information (or conclusions) conflict with other books you’ve read, courses you’ve taken or just previous assumptions you had of the subject?
• How does the author structure their argument? What are the parts that make up the whole? Does the argument make sense? Does it persuade you? Why or why not?
• How has this book helped you understand the subject? Would you recommend the book to your reader?

Beyond the internal workings of the book, you may also consider some information about the author and the circumstances of the text’s production:

• Who is the author? Nationality, political persuasion, training, intellectual interests, personal history, and historical context may provide crucial details about how a work takes shape. Does it matter, for example, that the biographer was the subject’s best friend? What difference would it make if the author participated in the events they write about?
• What is the book’s genre? Out of what field does it emerge? Does it conform to or depart from the conventions of its genre? These questions can provide a historical or literary standard on which to base your evaluations. If you are reviewing the first book ever written on the subject, it will be important for your readers to know. Keep in mind, though, that naming “firsts”—alongside naming “bests” and “onlys”—can be a risky business unless you’re absolutely certain.

Writing the review

Once you have made your observations and assessments of the work under review, carefully survey your notes and attempt to unify your impressions into a statement that will describe the purpose or thesis of your review. Check out our handout on thesis statements . Then, outline the arguments that support your thesis.

Your arguments should develop the thesis in a logical manner. That logic, unlike more standard academic writing, may initially emphasize the author’s argument while you develop your own in the course of the review. The relative emphasis depends on the nature of the review: if readers may be more interested in the work itself, you may want to make the work and the author more prominent; if you want the review to be about your perspective and opinions, then you may structure the review to privilege your observations over (but never separate from) those of the work under review. What follows is just one of many ways to organize a review.

Introduction

Since most reviews are brief, many writers begin with a catchy quip or anecdote that succinctly delivers their argument. But you can introduce your review differently depending on the argument and audience. The Writing Center’s handout on introductions can help you find an approach that works. In general, you should include:

• The name of the author and the book title and the main theme.
• Relevant details about who the author is and where they stand in the genre or field of inquiry. You could also link the title to the subject to show how the title explains the subject matter.
• The context of the book and/or your review. Placing your review in a framework that makes sense to your audience alerts readers to your “take” on the book. Perhaps you want to situate a book about the Cuban revolution in the context of Cold War rivalries between the United States and the Soviet Union. Another reviewer might want to consider the book in the framework of Latin American social movements. Your choice of context informs your argument.
• The thesis of the book. If you are reviewing fiction, this may be difficult since novels, plays, and short stories rarely have explicit arguments. But identifying the book’s particular novelty, angle, or originality allows you to show what specific contribution the piece is trying to make.
• Your thesis about the book.

Summary of content

This should be brief, as analysis takes priority. In the course of making your assessment, you’ll hopefully be backing up your assertions with concrete evidence from the book, so some summary will be dispersed throughout other parts of the review.

The necessary amount of summary also depends on your audience. Graduate students, beware! If you are writing book reviews for colleagues—to prepare for comprehensive exams, for example—you may want to devote more attention to summarizing the book’s contents. If, on the other hand, your audience has already read the book—such as a class assignment on the same work—you may have more liberty to explore more subtle points and to emphasize your own argument. See our handout on summary for more tips.

Analysis and evaluation of the book

Your analysis and evaluation should be organized into paragraphs that deal with single aspects of your argument. This arrangement can be challenging when your purpose is to consider the book as a whole, but it can help you differentiate elements of your criticism and pair assertions with evidence more clearly. You do not necessarily need to work chronologically through the book as you discuss it. Given the argument you want to make, you can organize your paragraphs more usefully by themes, methods, or other elements of the book. If you find it useful to include comparisons to other books, keep them brief so that the book under review remains in the spotlight. Avoid excessive quotation and give a specific page reference in parentheses when you do quote. Remember that you can state many of the author’s points in your own words.

Sum up or restate your thesis or make the final judgment regarding the book. You should not introduce new evidence for your argument in the conclusion. You can, however, introduce new ideas that go beyond the book if they extend the logic of your own thesis. This paragraph needs to balance the book’s strengths and weaknesses in order to unify your evaluation. Did the body of your review have three negative paragraphs and one favorable one? What do they all add up to? The Writing Center’s handout on conclusions can help you make a final assessment.

Finally, a few general considerations:

• Review the book in front of you, not the book you wish the author had written. You can and should point out shortcomings or failures, but don’t criticize the book for not being something it was never intended to be.
• With any luck, the author of the book worked hard to find the right words to express her ideas. You should attempt to do the same. Precise language allows you to control the tone of your review.
• Never hesitate to challenge an assumption, approach, or argument. Be sure, however, to cite specific examples to back up your assertions carefully.
• Try to present a balanced argument about the value of the book for its audience. You’re entitled—and sometimes obligated—to voice strong agreement or disagreement. But keep in mind that a bad book takes as long to write as a good one, and every author deserves fair treatment. Harsh judgments are difficult to prove and can give readers the sense that you were unfair in your assessment.
• A great place to learn about book reviews is to look at examples. The New York Times Sunday Book Review and The New York Review of Books can show you how professional writers review books.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Drewry, John. 1974. Writing Book Reviews. Boston: Greenwood Press.

Hoge, James. 1987. Literary Reviewing. Charlottesville: University Virginia of Press.

Sova, Dawn, and Harry Teitelbaum. 2002. How to Write Book Reports , 4th ed. Lawrenceville, NY: Thomson/Arco.

Walford, A.J. 1986. Reviews and Reviewing: A Guide. Phoenix: Oryx Press.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

Places on our 2024 summer school are filling fast. Don’t miss out. Enrol now to avoid disappointment

• 10 Types of Essay Feedback and How to Respond to Them

The moment of truth has arrived: you’ve got your marked essay back and you’re eagerly scanning through it, taking in the amount of red pen, and looking at the grade and hastily scrawled feedback at the end.

You should also read…

• The Complete Guide to Research Skills for Essay-Writing
• How to Write Dazzlingly Brilliant Essays

After deciphering the handwriting, you’re able to see a brief assessment of how you’ve performed in this essay, and your heart either leaps or sinks. Ideally, you’d receive detailed feedback telling you exactly where you fell short and providing helpful guidance on how to improve next time. However, the person marking your essay probably doesn’t have time for that, so instead leaves you very brief remarks that you then have to decode in order to understand how you can do better. In this article, we look at some of the common sorts of remarks you might receive in essay feedback, what they mean, and how to respond to them or take them on board so that you can write a better essay next time – no matter how good this one was!

1. “Too heavily reliant on critics”

We all fall into the trap of regurgitating whatever scholarship we happen to have read in the run-up to writing the essay, and it’s a problem that reveals that many students have no idea what their own opinion is. We’re so busy paraphrasing what scholars have said that we forget to think about whether we actually agree with what they’ve said. This is an issue we discussed in a recent article on developing your own opinion , in which we talked about how to approach scholarship with an open and critical mind, make up your own mind and give your own opinion in your essays. If you’ve received this kind of feedback, the person marking your essay has probably noticed that you’ve followed exactly the same line of thinking as one or more of the books on your reading list, without offering any kind of original comment. Take a look at the article linked to just now and you’ll soon be developing your own responses.

2. “Too short”

If your essay falls significantly short of the prescribed word count, this could suggest that you haven’t put in enough work. Most essays will require extensive reading before you can do a topic justice, and if you’ve struggled to fill the word count, it’s almost certainly because you haven’t done enough reading, and you’ve therefore missed out a significant line of enquiry. This is perhaps a sign that you’ve left it too late to write your essay, resulting in a rushed and incomplete essay (even if you consider it finished, it’s not complete if it hasn’t touched on topics of major relevance). This problem can be alleviated by effective time management, allowing plenty of time for the research phase of your essay and then enough time to write a detailed essay that touches on all the important arguments. If you’re struggling to think of things to say in your essay, try reading something on the topic that you haven’t read before. This will offer you a fresh perspective to talk about, and possibly help you to understand the topic clearly enough to start making more of your own comments about it.

3. “Too long”

[pullquote] “The present letter is a very long one, simply because I had no leisure to make it shorter” – Blaise Pascal [/pullquote]It sounds counter-intuitive, but it’s actually much easier to write an essay that’s too long than one that’s too short. This is because we’re all prone to waffling when we’re not entirely sure what we want to say, and/or because we want to show the person marking our essay that we’ve read extensively, even when some of the material we’ve read isn’t strictly relevant to the essay question we’ve been set. But the word count is there for a reason: it forces you to be clear and concise, leaving out what isn’t relevant. A short (say, 500-word) essay is actually a challenging academic exercise, so if you see fit to write twice the number of words, the person marking the essay is unlikely to be impressed. Fifty to a hundred words over the limit probably won’t be too much of an issue if that’s less than 10% of the word count, and will probably go unnoticed, but if you’ve ended up with something significantly over this, it’s time to start trimming. Re-read what you’ve written and scrutinise every single line. Does it add anything to your argument? Are you saying in ten words what could be said in three? Is there a whole paragraph that doesn’t really contribute to developing your argument? If so, get rid of it. This kind of ruthless editing and rephrasing can quickly bring your word count down, and it results in a much tighter and more carefully worded essay.

4. “Contradicts itself”

Undermining your own argument is an embarrassing mistake to make, but you can do it without realising when you’ve spent so long tweaking your essay that you can no longer see the wood for the trees. Contradicting yourself in an essay is also a sign that you haven’t completely understood the issues and haven’t formed a clear opinion on what the evidence shows. To avoid this error, have a detailed read through your essay before you submit it and look in particular detail at the statements you make. Looking at them in essence and in isolation, do any of them contradict each other? If so, decide which you think is more convincing and make your argument accordingly.

5. “Too many quotations”

It’s all too easy to hide behind the words of others when one is unsure of something, or lacking a complete understanding of a topic. This insecurity leads us to quote extensively from either original sources or scholars, including long chunks of quoted text as a nifty way of upping the word count without having to reveal our own ignorance (too much). But you won’t fool the person marking your essay by doing this: they’ll see immediately that you’re relying too heavily on the words of others, without enough intelligent supporting commentary, and it’s particularly revealing when most of the quotations are from the same source (which shows that you haven’t read widely enough). It’s good to include some quotations from a range of different sources, as it adds colour to your essay, shows that you’ve read widely and demonstrates that you’re thinking about different kinds of evidence. However, if you’ve received this kind of feedback, you can improve your next essay by not quoting more than a sentence at a time, making the majority of the text of your essay your own words, and including plenty of your own interpretation and responses to what you’ve quoted. Another word of advice regarding quotations: one of my tutors once told me is that one should never end an essay on a quotation. You may think that this is a clever way of bringing your essay to a conclusion, but actually you’re giving the last word to someone else when it’s your essay, and you should make the final intelligent closing remark. Quoting someone else at the end is a cop-out that some students use to get out of the tricky task of writing a strong final sentence, so however difficult the alternative may seem, don’t do it!

6. “Not enough evidence”

In an essay, every point you make must be backed up with supporting evidence – it’s one of the fundamental tenets of academia. You can’t make a claim unless you can show what has lead you to it, whether that’s a passage in an original historical source, the result of some scientific research, or any other form of information that would lend credibility to your statement. A related problem is that some students will quote a scholar’s opinion as though it were concrete evidence of something; in fact, that is just one person’s opinion, and that opinion has been influenced by the scholar’s own biases. The evidence they based the opinion on might be tenuous, so it’s that evidence you should be looking at, not the actual opinion of the scholar themselves. As you write your essay, make a point of checking that everything you’ve said is adequately supported.

7. “All over the place” / “Confused”

An essay described as “all over the place” – or words to that effect – reveals that the student who wrote it hasn’t developed a clear line of argument, and that they are going off at tangents and using an incoherent structure in which one point doesn’t seem to bear any relation to the previous one. A tight structure is vital in essay-writing, as it holds the reader’s interest and helps build your argument to a logical conclusion. You can avoid your essay seeming confused by writing an essay plan before you start. This will help you get the structure right and be clear about what you want to say before you start writing.

8. “Misses the point”

This feedback can feel particularly damning if you’ve spent a long time writing what you thought was a carefully constructed essay. A simple reason might be that you didn’t read the question carefully enough. But it’s also a problem that arises when students spend too long looking at less relevant sources and not enough at the most important ones, because they ran out of time, or because they didn’t approach their reading lists in the right order, or because they failed to identify correctly which the most important sources actually were. This leads to students focusing on the wrong thing, or perhaps getting lost in the details. The tutor marking the essay, who has a well-rounded view of the topic, will be baffled if you’ve devoted much of your essay to discussing something you thought was important, but which they know to be a minor detail when compared with the underlying point. If you’re not sure which items on your reading list to tackle first, you could try asking your tutor next time if they could give you some pointers on which of the material they recommend you focus on first. It can also be helpful to prompt yourself from time to time with the question “What is the point?”, as this will remind you to take a step back and figure out what the core issues are.

9. “Poor presentation”

This kind of remark is likely to refer to issues with the formatting of your essay, spelling and punctuation , or general style. Impeccable spelling and grammar are a must, so proofread your essay before you submit it and check that there are no careless typos (computer spell checks don’t always pick these up). In terms of your writing style , you might get a comment like this if the essay marker found your writing either boring or in a style inappropriate to the context of a formal essay. Finally, looks matter: use a sensible, easy-to-read font, print with good-quality ink and paper if you’re printing, and write neatly and legibly if you’re handwriting. Your essay should be as easy to read as possible for the person marking it, as this lessens their workload and makes them feel more positively towards your work.

10. “Very good”

On the face of it, this is the sort of essay feedback every student wants to hear. But when you think about it, it’s not actually very helpful – particularly when it’s accompanied by a mark that wasn’t as high as you were aiming for. With these two words, you have no idea why you didn’t achieve top marks. In the face of such (frankly lazy) marking from your teacher or lecturer, the best response is to be pleased that you’ve received a positive comment, but to go to the person who marked it and ask for more comments on what you could have done to get a higher mark. They shouldn’t be annoyed at your asking, because you’re simply striving to do better every time.

General remarks on responding to essay feedback

We end with a few general pieces of advice on how to respond to essay feedback.

• Don’t take criticism personally.
• Remember that feedback is there to help you improve.
• Don’t be afraid to ask for more feedback if what they’ve said isn’t clear.
• Don’t rest on your laurels – if you’ve had glowing feedback, it’s still worth asking if there’s anything you could have done to make the essay even better.

It can be difficult to have one’s hard work (metaphorically) ripped apart or disparaged, but feedback is ultimately there to help you get higher grades, get into better universities, and put you on a successful career path; so keep that end goal in mind when you get your essay back.

Image credits: banner ; library ; snake ; magnifying glass ; dartboard ; suggestions box . 

"Culture and morale changed overnight! In under 2 months, we’ve had over 2,000 kudos sent and 80%+ engagement across all employees."

President at M&H

Recognition and Rewards all inside Slack or Microsoft Teams

Free To Try. No Credit Card Required.

Celebrate wins together and regularly for all to see

Redeem coins for gift cards, company rewards & donations

Start a weekly recognition habit with automatic reminders

Automatically celebrate birthdays and work anniversaries

10x your response rate, instantly with surveys inside Slack/Teams

Gather continuous, real-time feedback and insights

Discover insights from recognition

Have questions? Send us a message

How teams are building culture with employee recognition and rewards

Advice and answers from the Matter team

Helpful videos to fully experience Matter

Peer Review Examples (+14 Phrases to Use)

‍ Table of Contents:

Peer review feedback examples, what are the benefits of peer review feedback examples, what are peer review feedback examples, 5 key parts of good peer review examples, 14 examples of performance review phrases, how do you give peer review feedback to remote teams, the benefits of a feedback culture, how to implement a strong feedback culture.

A peer review is a type of evaluative feedback. It focuses on the strengths and areas of improvement for yourself, your team members, and even the organization as a whole. This form of evaluation can benefit all parties involved, helping to build self-awareness and grow in new ways that we might not have realized before. Of course, the best examples of peer review feedback are those that are well-received and effective in the workplace, which we will go over in the next section.

As mentioned, peer review feedback is a great way to identify your strengths and weaknesses and those of others. The benefits are two-fold: it helps you grow in new ways that may have been difficult for you before, while also making sure everyone involved feels confident about their abilities moving forward.

For instance, organizations with robust feedback cultures can close any gaps that hinder their performance and seize business opportunities whenever they present themselves. This dual benefit gives them competitive advantages that allow them to grow, along with a more positive workplace. Leading companies that enjoy these types of advantages include Cargill, Netflix, and Google. Peer review feedback can also be a great tool to use for conducting your annual performance reviews. They give managers visibility and insights that might not be possible otherwise. The feedback can help you better understand how your employees view their performance, as well as what they think the company's expectations are of them. This opportunity is especially helpful for those who work remotely—it allows managers to see things that might be missed otherwise.

For example, if an employee works from home often or telecommutes frequently, it can be more difficult for managers to get a sense of how they are doing. This is where peer review feedback comes in—if their peers notice issues that need attention, this provides the manager with valuable insights that might otherwise have gone unnoticed. Everyone must be on the same page about what exactly it is they want from these sessions and how their employees will benefit from receiving them.

A Gallup poll revealed that organizations that give their employees regular feedback have turnover rates that are almost 15% lower than for those employees that didn't receive any. This statistic indicates that regular reviews, including peer reviews, are important. However, so is giving the right kind of peer review feedback.

As such, when you have a peer review session, think about some good examples of the type of feedback that might be beneficial for both parties. These would be the relevant peer review examples you want to use for your organization.

One example would be to discuss ways in which the employee’s performance may have been exemplary when you give them their peer review feedback forms . This conversation gives the person being reviewed an idea about how well they're doing and where their strengths lie in the form of positive feedback. 

On the other hand, it also helps them know there is room for improvement where they may not have realized it before in the form of negative feedback.

Another example would be to discuss how you might improve how the person being reviewed conducts themselves on a day-to-day basis. Again, this action can help someone realize how their performance can be improved and provide them with suggestions that they might not have thought of before.

For example, you may notice that a team member tends to talk more than is necessary during meetings or wastes time by doing unnecessary tasks when other pressing matters are at hand. This type of negative feedback would allow the person receiving it to know what areas they need to work on and how they can improve themselves.

As mentioned previously, peer reviews are a great way of giving an employee concrete suggestions for the areas in which they need improvement, as well as those where their performance is exemplary.

To ensure that your team feels valued and confident moving forward, you should give them the best examples of peer review feedback possible. The following are five examples of what constitutes good peer review feedback:

1. Use anonymity. Keeping them anonymous so that the employee review makes workers feel comfortable with the content and don't feel any bias has entered the review process.

2. Scheduling them frequently enough. A good employee experience with peer reviews involves scheduling them often enough so that no one has an unwelcome surprise come annual or biannual performance appraisal time.

3. Keep them objective & constructive. Keep peer review feedback objective and constructive—your goal is to help improve the peers you're reviewing so they can continue to do an even better job than before!

4. Having key points to work on. Ask questions such as: what is the goal? And what does the company want people to get out of each session?

5. The right people giving the peer review . Personnel familiar with the employee's work should be the ones doing the employee evaluation, rating the reviewer's performance, and providing peer feedback.

You can use the following positive performance appraisal phrases to recognize and coach your employees for anything from regularly scheduled peer reviews to biannual and annual appraisals:

• "I can always count on you to..." ‍
• "You are a dependable employee who meets all deadlines." ‍
• "Your customer service is excellent. You make everyone feel welcome and comfortable, no matter how busy things get." ‍
• "The accounting work that you do for our team helps us out in the long run." ‍
• "I appreciate your helpfulness when it comes to training new employees. You always seem willing to take some time out of your day, even though you're busy with other tasks, to show them how we do things here at [COMPANY]." ‍
• "It's so nice to see you staying on top of your work. You never miss a deadline, and that is very important here at [COMPANY]." ‍
• "I can always count on you when I need something done immediately." ‍
• "Your communication skills are exceptional, and I appreciate the way you always get your point across clearly." ‍
• "You are always willing to lend an ear if someone needs help or has a question about something. You're great at being the go-to person when people need advice." ‍
• "I appreciate your ability to anticipate our customers' needs."

Negative performance review phrases can be helpful if handled the right way and often contribute to improving the employee's performance. 

Here are some examples of effective negative performance review phrases you can use:

• "You seem to struggle with following the company's processes. I would like to see you get better at staying on top of what needs to be done and getting it done on time." ‍
• "I'm concerned that your work quality has slipped lately. You're still meeting deadlines, but some of your work seems rushed or incomplete. I want to make sure that you're giving everything the attention it deserves." ‍
• "I noticed that you've been getting a lot of customer complaints lately. Is there anything going on? Maybe we can work together and come up with some solutions for how things could be better handled in the future?" ‍
• "You seem overwhelmed right now, and it's affecting your work quality. I want to help you figure out how we can better distribute the workload so that you're not feeling like this anymore."

When giving peer review feedback to remote teams, it is essential for everyone involved that the employee being reviewed feels comfortable and respected. And whether a peer or direct report gives the remote employee a review, the most effective way to ensure this happens is by providing open communication and constructive feedback throughout the process.

However, when you work remotely, it can be difficult to get the opportunity for peer feedback. However, there are ways of ensuring that such a process is still beneficial and productive.

The following are some examples of how to go about giving effective peer review feedback when working virtually:

• Take advantage of webcams or video conferencing to make sure that you can see the employee's facial expressions and monitor body language during a performance review, remote or otherwise. ‍
• Just like with any in-person performance review, it's critical to schedule a regular time for sessions so they don't catch anyone by surprise. ‍
• Make it clear at both your end as well as theirs what the overall goal is—this helps them prepare ahead of time and ensures there are no unforeseen surprises. ‍
• Ensure that you keep the feedback objective with constructive criticism, as this is what will allow them to improve their performance in a way that they can take advantage of immediately. Include all these key points in your company peer review templates also. ‍
• Be prepared for these sessions by having a list of key points you want to cover with your peer reviewer—this helps guide the conversation while ensuring no important points are overlooked.

When employees enjoy their work, understand their goals, and know the values and competencies of the job, job satisfaction increases, along with their performance. In addition, the link between productivity and effective feedback is well established. For instance, 69% of workers said they would work harder if their efforts were recognized, according to LinkedIn.

Continuous and regularly scheduled performance appraisal feedback helps with employee development, clarifies expectations, aligns goals, and motivates staff (check out our article Peer Review Feedback to find out why peer feedback is so essential), establishing a positive workplace. Lastly, a workplace that dedicates itself to motivating people to be better will improve employee engagement and the levels of performance.

If you haven't implemented a culture for using feedback yet, there are several effective ways to go about it. One good way to kick things off is to first identify teams or some other similar organizational unit and have them experiment with the social feedback system.

While the frequency of peer reviews should be given every three to four weeks, or even at the end of a project sprint , the cycles for building a strong feedback culture can be quarterly or monthly, depending on your preferences and operations.

After the three cycles are finalized, you typically have built up enough feedback information to start the organization on its path to a strong feedback culture.

Knowing these peer review feedback examples and tips on giving them to remote teams will help you become more comfortable with this type of evaluative discussion. It can be difficult at first, but remember that the benefits are worth it! And remember: when giving peer review feedback, make sure you keep each session objective. This helps ensure they're constructive and that both parties walk away feeling as though they've learned a lot from them.

Want to keep that morale sky-high during Feedback Friday and the peer review process? If so, be sure to check out Matter , with features that allow you to give public Kudos all inside Slack.

Start Employee Recognition, Rewards, & Surveys

Recognition, Rewards & Surveys all in Slack or Teams

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Critical Reviews

How to Write an Article Review (With Examples)

Last Updated: April 24, 2024 Fact Checked

Preparing to Write Your Review

Writing the article review, sample article reviews, expert q&a.

This article was co-authored by Jake Adams . Jake Adams is an academic tutor and the owner of Simplifi EDU, a Santa Monica, California based online tutoring business offering learning resources and online tutors for academic subjects K-College, SAT & ACT prep, and college admissions applications. With over 14 years of professional tutoring experience, Jake is dedicated to providing his clients the very best online tutoring experience and access to a network of excellent undergraduate and graduate-level tutors from top colleges all over the nation. Jake holds a BS in International Business and Marketing from Pepperdine University. There are 12 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 3,103,362 times.

An article review is both a summary and an evaluation of another writer's article. Teachers often assign article reviews to introduce students to the work of experts in the field. Experts also are often asked to review the work of other professionals. Understanding the main points and arguments of the article is essential for an accurate summation. Logical evaluation of the article's main theme, supporting arguments, and implications for further research is an important element of a review . Here are a few guidelines for writing an article review.

Education specialist Alexander Peterman recommends: "In the case of a review, your objective should be to reflect on the effectiveness of what has already been written, rather than writing to inform your audience about a subject."

Article Review 101

• Read the article very closely, and then take time to reflect on your evaluation. Consider whether the article effectively achieves what it set out to.
• Write out a full article review by completing your intro, summary, evaluation, and conclusion. Don't forget to add a title, too!
• Proofread your review for mistakes (like grammar and usage), while also cutting down on needless information.

• Article reviews present more than just an opinion. You will engage with the text to create a response to the scholarly writer's ideas. You will respond to and use ideas, theories, and research from your studies. Your critique of the article will be based on proof and your own thoughtful reasoning.
• An article review only responds to the author's research. It typically does not provide any new research. However, if you are correcting misleading or otherwise incorrect points, some new data may be presented.
• An article review both summarizes and evaluates the article.

• Summarize the article. Focus on the important points, claims, and information.
• Discuss the positive aspects of the article. Think about what the author does well, good points she makes, and insightful observations.
• Identify contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies in the text. Determine if there is enough data or research included to support the author's claims. Find any unanswered questions left in the article.

• Make note of words or issues you don't understand and questions you have.
• Look up terms or concepts you are unfamiliar with, so you can fully understand the article. Read about concepts in-depth to make sure you understand their full context.

• Pay careful attention to the meaning of the article. Make sure you fully understand the article. The only way to write a good article review is to understand the article.

• With either method, make an outline of the main points made in the article and the supporting research or arguments. It is strictly a restatement of the main points of the article and does not include your opinions.
• After putting the article in your own words, decide which parts of the article you want to discuss in your review. You can focus on the theoretical approach, the content, the presentation or interpretation of evidence, or the style. You will always discuss the main issues of the article, but you can sometimes also focus on certain aspects. This comes in handy if you want to focus the review towards the content of a course.
• Review the summary outline to eliminate unnecessary items. Erase or cross out the less important arguments or supplemental information. Your revised summary can serve as the basis for the summary you provide at the beginning of your review.

• What does the article set out to do?
• What is the theoretical framework or assumptions?
• Are the central concepts clearly defined?
• How adequate is the evidence?
• How does the article fit into the literature and field?
• Does it advance the knowledge of the subject?
• How clear is the author's writing? Don't: include superficial opinions or your personal reaction. Do: pay attention to your biases, so you can overcome them.

• For example, in MLA , a citation may look like: Duvall, John N. "The (Super)Marketplace of Images: Television as Unmediated Mediation in DeLillo's White Noise ." Arizona Quarterly 50.3 (1994): 127-53. Print. [9] X Trustworthy Source Purdue Online Writing Lab Trusted resource for writing and citation guidelines Go to source

• For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest.

• Your introduction should only be 10-25% of your review.
• End the introduction with your thesis. Your thesis should address the above issues. For example: Although the author has some good points, his article is biased and contains some misinterpretation of data from others’ analysis of the effectiveness of the condom.

• Use direct quotes from the author sparingly.
• Review the summary you have written. Read over your summary many times to ensure that your words are an accurate description of the author's article.

• Support your critique with evidence from the article or other texts.
• The summary portion is very important for your critique. You must make the author's argument clear in the summary section for your evaluation to make sense.
• Remember, this is not where you say if you liked the article or not. You are assessing the significance and relevance of the article.
• Use a topic sentence and supportive arguments for each opinion. For example, you might address a particular strength in the first sentence of the opinion section, followed by several sentences elaborating on the significance of the point.

• This should only be about 10% of your overall essay.
• For example: This critical review has evaluated the article "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS" by Anthony Zimmerman. The arguments in the article show the presence of bias, prejudice, argumentative writing without supporting details, and misinformation. These points weaken the author’s arguments and reduce his credibility.

• Make sure you have identified and discussed the 3-4 key issues in the article.

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://libguides.cmich.edu/writinghelp/articlereview
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548566/
• ↑ Jake Adams. Academic Tutor & Test Prep Specialist. Expert Interview. 24 July 2020.
• ↑ https://guides.library.queensu.ca/introduction-research/writing/critical
• ↑ https://www.iup.edu/writingcenter/writing-resources/organization-and-structure/creating-an-outline.html
• ↑ https://writing.umn.edu/sws/assets/pdf/quicktips/titles.pdf
• ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_periodicals.html
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548565/
• ↑ https://writingcenter.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/593/2014/06/How_to_Summarize_a_Research_Article1.pdf
• ↑ https://www.uis.edu/learning-hub/writing-resources/handouts/learning-hub/how-to-review-a-journal-article
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/editing-and-proofreading/

About This Article

If you have to write an article review, read through the original article closely, taking notes and highlighting important sections as you read. Next, rewrite the article in your own words, either in a long paragraph or as an outline. Open your article review by citing the article, then write an introduction which states the article’s thesis. Next, summarize the article, followed by your opinion about whether the article was clear, thorough, and useful. Finish with a paragraph that summarizes the main points of the article and your opinions. To learn more about what to include in your personal critique of the article, keep reading the article! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Prince Asiedu-Gyan

Apr 22, 2022

Did this article help you?

Sammy James

Sep 12, 2017

Juabin Matey

Aug 30, 2017

Vanita Meghrajani

Jul 21, 2016

Nov 27, 2018

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Get all the best how-tos!

Sign up for wikiHow's weekly email newsletter

• Utility Menu

• Writing Center
• Writing Program
• Commenting Efficiently

10 STRATEGIES FOR RESPONDING TO STUDENT WRITING MORE EFFICIENTLY

• Skim through the pile to discern the range of responses to an assignment.
• Read each essay through quickly, before making any marks, to identify major strengths and weaknesses.
• Think about strengths and weaknesses in terms of clear assessment criteria—thesis, structure, analysis, and so on.
• Comment representatively in the margins by noting patterns.
• Use a reliable format for structuring final comments—for example, restatement of thesis, discussion of strengths, and discussion of weaknesses.
• Identify in final comments no more than three or four areas for improvement.
• Design effective writing assignments.
• Respond to proposals, outlines, and drafts.
• Organize students into writing groups.
• Ask for a cover letter.
• Pedagogy Workshops
• Responding to Student Writing
• Designing Essay Assignments
• Vocabulary for Discussing Student Writing
• Guides to Teaching Writing
• HarvardWrites Instructor Toolkit
• Additional Resources for Teaching Fellows

Make your essay memorable to admissions

Submit an essay

Choose who you want an essay review from.

Peer review

Peer review community, expert review.

Robert Carlson

Daniel Berkowitz

Denise Haile

Chinaza Ruth Okonkwo

Craig Aimar

Denise Karp

Robbie Herbst

Christopher Kilner

Elias Miller

Veronica Prout

Sophie Alina

Adrian Russian

Subha Subramanian

Lori Zomback

Joseph Recupero

Priya Desai

Emily Kramer

Olga Ivleva

Ethan Glasserman

Stephanie Vitanzo

Samara Watkins

Emily Brother

Gabe Henry Woody

Pascale Bradley

Abby Purfeerst

Shane Niesen

Review options

Specialties, what students are saying, peer review, college essay guy, how it works, differentiating yourself is more important than ever, review a peer essay.

Jimmie's Collage

lifestyle blog of a single mom who works from home

Giving Positive Feedback in Writing

December 2, 2010 By Jimmie Quick 15 Comments

When you are helping your child in the revising stage of writing, be ever so careful with your criticism. If you are  like me, you breeze over all the strong things in the assignment and narrow in on the errors and the weaknesses .

I do see the positive aspects, but I tend to only verbalize the negative aspects. It’s part of my “hurry up and get cracking” attitude:   Let’s get these problems fixed so we can move on. But in doing so, I’m neglecting a really important part of the writing process.

Sprite needs to hear exactly what are the strong points of her writing as well as hear about the weaker parts.

2.  She may not even realize those are strong points. Those things may have happened accidentally. By pointing out the positive aspects, she is more likely to repeat them and understand why they are so important.

In order for the praise to work it must be two things:

Just saying, “ This is good ” isn’t very helpful. The praise needs to tell exactly what was good.

Here are some examples of specific praise you can use.

• This thesis statement is very clear. When I read it, I know exactly what your essay will be about.
• This paragraph is full of details. This one even made me laugh. This one gave me a clear image in my mind.
• Your introduction really grabbed my attention. I wanted to keep reading.
• This transition word is perfect for shifting to the next main idea.
• I love how you wrapped up all the main points at the end. Your clincher was very strong.
• Great use of comma and a conjunction to join to independent clauses!
• This is a superb word choice.
• Wow, there are no run-on sentences in this entire essay.
• You didn’t get tricked by the its/it’s thing. Good job!

Notice my praise included conceptual elements (details, introduction), structural elements (transitions, thesis statement), and mechanics (its/it’s, run-ons). All are part of the written product, and all deserve some feedback.

More You Will Like

December 2, 2010 at 10:08 pm

Oh Jimmie, this is timely! -Christine

December 2, 2010 at 10:35 pm

Timely indeed. And I guess I should give some genuine, specific feedback!

Good point about kids not realizing the strong points of their writing. Also remembering to comment on concepts, mechanics, and structure will help the writer keep all those things in mind.

December 3, 2010 at 12:35 am

This has been one of my weakest skills in homeschooling. I find it very hard to critique their writing. I am procrastinating looking at Mr. A’s Lord of the Flies essay right now….want to look at it for me? I am trying to use grading rubrics for this visual spatial learner and it helps both of us have a way to find the positives and negatives in his writing.

Great post, one that many of us need to remember.

December 3, 2010 at 8:26 am

Perfect advice! I love it how you focused on the importance of giving comprehensive feedback – not only (negative) criticism.

Read Aloud Dad

December 3, 2010 at 11:28 am

When I was teaching high school English I used to work on writing skills a lot and you are right, positive is so important. I would often say things like “Well your creativity, the most important element that certainly can’t be taught is there in spades! Now let’s just work on that pesky spelling and paragraphing which is the boring bit but needs to be right.” I’d always let them know what was valued and then move on to the specific targets that I wanted them to work on. I think being specific and quantifiable is so important, let them know exactly what you want them to do rather than a vague ‘improve structure’. Good article on an important topic.

December 3, 2010 at 12:19 pm

All great advice! The writing process is so complex, it’s easy to overwhelm our kids with corrections!

December 3, 2010 at 2:45 pm

Great tips! You have given wonderful examples of positive comments. Good writing is such a complex combination of skills that it helps to know what to focus on when giving the assigment and bear those skills in mind when grading. So if, for example, we focus on topic sentences in paragraphs, or attention grabbing introductions, that is the aspect that needs the most encouragement and the other technical details are secondary.

December 3, 2010 at 7:18 pm

Thanks for posting this, I SOOOO needed it, especially now. Need to take these points to heart.

December 3, 2010 at 9:27 pm

A great reminder! Love the suggestions for positive comments. Thank you!

December 4, 2010 at 12:08 pm

What a wonderful post. Giving positive feedback on children’s writing is something I learned when I taught in the public schools, and it is something I have tried to remember with my own children. I have noticed with my own kids, that the more positive feedback that I give them, the better they take the criticism and are able to use it to improve their writing.

December 6, 2010 at 5:14 am

Great post, Jimmie! One tip I have for critiquing the writing of a new or reluctant writer is to focus on one main thing at a time until it is mastered. I had one of my children write many shorter length pieces and work on, let’s say, paragraph transition, or subject-word agreement, or clear topic sentences, etc. Focusing on one aspect at a time helped my student not be overwhelmed while giving him time to see where he needed to improve.

Dana Dana Wilson Epi Kardia Home Education, LLC http://www.epikardia.com http://www.epikardia.com/blog/curriculum/is-santa-real/

December 10, 2010 at 6:58 am

And so true in all aspects of teaching and parenting. The criticisms are easy and always ready. The praise for a job done right . . . or the good parts of a job done not so well . . . is not quite as quick in coming. Though every bit as important, and often more so.

December 11, 2010 at 10:59 pm

This is really great advice, not only for writing, but for homeschooling and parenting in general.

When I review my son’s writing assignments, I also start by reminding him that receiving feedback and making corrections is part of the writing process. I tell him that when I write e-mails, letters, blog posts, etc., I always have to go back and make changes and revisions. Sometimes, I even show him something I’ve marked up. I think this helps him understand that it’s not personal.

December 16, 2010 at 10:53 am

Hey Jimmie, I tried to link over to the article that you included, but I think the link may have changed. Just fyi. I’d love to read the article. Thanks for the cont’d reminder about pointed out what’s working in a piece of writing.

December 17, 2010 at 12:55 pm

Aimee, You are right! The article is GONE. How terrible. It was a fantastic article, and no amount of searching can turn it up. (Even the Wayback Machine at Archive.org doesn’t work.) I’m so sorry!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

26 Example Paragraphs for Performance Reviews [Positive & Negative Feedback]

By Status.net Editorial Team on April 8, 2023 — 15 minutes to read

Performance reviews play an essential role in employee growth and development. Effectively conveying praise and guidance facilitates open communication and contributes to a positive work environment. This article provides example paragraphs for performance reviews, focusing on various skills and including both positive and negative examples; each skill is addressed separately, with example paragraphs demonstrating how to effectively communicate strengths or areas for improvement.

See also: 2000+ Performance Review Phrases: The Complete List (Performance Feedback Examples)

How to Give Effective Feedback (and Avoid Mistakes)

Communication Skills

Positive feedback example for communication skills.

“Emma consistently demonstrates strong communication skills, both in writing and speaking. Her emails are clear, concise, and always contain all necessary information, making it easy for colleagues to understand her messages and respond promptly. Additionally, her ability to intertwine detailed explanations with relevant examples allows her to convey complex ideas in an easily digestible manner.

During team meetings, Emma is an active listener, giving her undivided attention to the speaker and providing thoughtful input on the topic at hand. Notably, she has shown tact and empathy when mediating team discussions, diffusing tense situations effectively. As a result, she contributes to a positive and inclusive work environment.”

Negative Feedback Example for Communication Skills

“John has room for improvement in his communication skills. His written correspondence tends to be disorganized and lacking in detail, creating confusion for the recipients. It is recommended that John proofread his messages carefully and ensure that they include all necessary information before sending them.

In team meetings, John often interrupts his colleagues and speaks over them, making it difficult for others to express their thoughts or complete their points. To improve, John should practice active listening, allowing his team members to speak uninterrupted and demonstrate respect for their opinions.”

See also: Performance feedback phrases for communication skills : Performance Review Phrases for Communication

Leadership Skills

Positive feedback example for leadership skills.

“Emma has demonstrated exceptional leadership skills by fostering a positive work environment where team members feel valued and engaged. She leads by example and creates an atmosphere that encourages open communication, collaboration, and continuous learning. Her team consistently meets and often exceeds their goals, reflecting her ability to delegate tasks effectively and provide constructive feedback to drive improvement.

During challenging times, Emma maintains a calm and collected demeanor, serving as a source of support and reassurance for her team. She has been instrumental in implementing team-building exercises that have helped improve overall team performance and cohesion.”

Negative Feedback Example for Leadership Skills

“While George has demonstrated strong technical skills, his leadership abilities require improvement. He tends to micromanage tasks, which can undermine team members’ confidence and limit their opportunities for growth. In addition, rather than proactively addressing issues and conflicts, George often disregards them, leading to a tense work environment.

Team members have reported feeling unsupported and disengaged, impacting their overall motivation and productivity. To enhance his leadership skills, George should focus on developing better communication and delegation abilities, as well as providing timely and constructive feedback to foster a more supportive and collaborative team dynamic.”

See also: Performance feedback phrases for leadership skills : 169 Performance Review Feedback Phrases for Planning, Leadership, Management Style

Teamwork Skills

Teamwork skills are essential for employees to effectively work together, achieve common goals, and create a positive workplace environment.

Positive Feedback Example for Teamwork Skills

“John demonstrates a strong work ethic and a commitment to the team. He actively collaborates with colleagues and willingly offers his support in any way needed. John’s ability to give and receive constructive criticism has helped the team maintain a healthy working relationship. John respects and values the opinions of his team members. He also communicates his ideas and opinions clearly to other team members, which has greatly improved the group’s overall efficiency. John’s teamwork skills include: effective communication, open-mindedness, active listening, conflict resolution.”

Negative Feedback Example for Teamwork Skills

“Jane shows a lack of teamwork skills that have impacted her team’s performance. She tends to work in isolation and does not openly communicate her ideas or opinions with others. This has led to misunderstandings on several occasions and increased the risk of project delays.

Jane also tends to dismiss the feedback and input of other team members, which has negatively impacted overall morale. She struggles to accept constructive criticism and has shown resistance to change. This behavior hinders the team’s ability to optimize processes and achieve common goals.

Areas for improvement in Jane’s teamwork skills include:

• Area of improvement: Communication Suggested action: Participate in training sessions focused on communication skills.
• Area of improvement: Listening Suggested action: Attend workshops on active listening and open-mindedness to better understand the value of diverse perspectives.
• Area of improvement: Conflict resolution Suggested action: Seek guidance from a mentor or coach to improve conflict resolution skills.
• Area of improvement: Collaboration Suggested action: Connect with colleagues regularly and engage in team-building activities to strengthen bonds among the team members.”

See also: Performance feedback phrases for teamwork skills : 150+ Performance Appraisal Phrases (Teamwork, Technical Skills, Time Management)

Problem-Solving Skills

Problem-solving skills are essential for employees to effectively tackle challenges and find solutions in their daily tasks.

Positive Feedback Example for Problem Solving Skills

“Jane has consistently showcased her exceptional problem-solving skills throughout her time on the customer support team. When faced with complex customer issues, she is able to quickly identify the root cause of the problem and implement an effective solution. For example, when a recent escalation arose involving a client’s recurring billing discrepancy, Jane swiftly analyzed the situation and discovered an error in the system settings. She then collaborated with the IT department to address the glitch, resulting in a prompt resolution for the client and preventing further issues.”

Negative Feedback Example for Problem Solving Skills

“While Mike is a valuable team member in our IT department, his problem-solving skills require improvement. When confronted with multiple issues during the recent network updates, Mike appeared overwhelmed and struggled to make problems more manageable. For instance, he failed to prioritize tasks, which led to delays in addressing critical system vulnerabilities. Additionally, his communication with colleagues was less than satisfactory, making it difficult for others to assist and collaborate on finding solutions.

Improving his problem-solving skills would enable Mike to respond more effectively to challenges and contribute significantly to the success of future projects. We encourage him to seek additional training and to collaborate more closely with colleagues to help break down complex tasks into more manageable, actionable steps.”

See also: Performance feedback phrases for decision making and problem solving : 174 Performance Feedback Examples (Reliability, Integrity, Problem Solving)

Time Management Skills

Effective time management is essential for success in the workplace. Employees who excel in managing their time are able to prioritize tasks, meet deadlines, and complete work efficiently.

Positive Feedback Example for Time Management Skills

“During the past year, Jane has demonstrated exceptional time management skills by consistently completing projects ahead of schedule. She is able to create realistic time estimates for tasks and allocate her work hours effectively to ensure her goals are met. An example of her strong time management skills is her work on the ABC project, where she successfully managed multiple tasks and deadlines within tight time constraints. Jane’s excellent time management has allowed her to excel at prioritizing work and increase overall productivity in the team.”

Negative Feedback Example for Time Management Skills

“Over the last year, John has struggled with managing his time effectively, which has resulted in missed deadlines and low-quality work. Despite being provided with clear project timelines, John often underestimates the time required to complete tasks and is unable to prioritize his workload appropriately. One notable example is his involvement in a recent project, where he failed to meet several deadlines and did not effectively communicate his progress to the team. This lack of time management skills has negatively impacted the team’s overall performance and must be addressed in order to improve John’s productivity.”

See also: Performance feedback phrases for time management skills : 150+ Performance Appraisal Phrases (Teamwork, Technical Skills, Time Management)

Creativity Skills

Creativity skills are essential for problem-solving and generating new ideas in the workplace.

Positive Feedback Example for Creativity

“John consistently demonstrates his ability to think outside the box. He is excellent at brainstorming sessions, frequently contributing innovative ideas and solutions. For instance, during a recent project, John developed a creative marketing strategy that increased engagement on social media by 30%. Thanks to his unique perspectives, John has helped drive successful outcomes and boost department performance.”

Negative Feedback Example for Creativity

“Though Jane has strong technical skills, she struggles with adapting to new challenges and situations. She often gets stuck in traditional ways of thinking and is hesitant to propose innovative solutions. This has, at times, limited the team’s ability to overcome obstacles and move forward with projects.

For Jane to improve their creativity skills, she should actively participate in brainstorming sessions, share her thoughts and ideas, and engage in exercises designed to promote out-of-the-box thinking.”

See also: Performance feedback phrases for creativity and innovation : 242 Examples

Interpersonal Skills

Interpersonal skills are essential in the workplace to build healthy relationships and work collaboratively. These skills also help to manage conflicts effectively and cultivate a positive work environment.

Positive Feedback Example for Interpersonal Skills

“Jane has demonstrated excellent active listening skills during team meetings and while working on projects. She effectively listens to her colleagues’ ideas and provides thoughtful feedback, which has improved overall team communication. She consistently fosters an environment of collaboration and cooperation and readily offers her assistance to colleagues.”

Negative Feedback Example for Interpersonal Skills

“During the last quarter, Susan failed to take responsibility for the deadlines and often blamed her team members. She struggles with clearly conveying her ideas and thoughts to others, leaving her colleagues confused and unsure of their tasks or objectives. To improve her interpersonal skills, Susan needs to work on her communication abilities and practice being more concise and clear with her instructions.”

See also: Performance feedback phrases for communication skills : Performance Review Phrases for Communication and Interpersonal Skills

Customer Service Skills

Effective customer service skills are crucial to providing an exceptional experience for customers.

Positive Feedback Example for Customer Service Skills

“Anna consistently demonstrates outstanding customer service skills. She is known for her empathy and active listening, allowing her to effectively understand and address customer concerns. As a result, Anna has been able to maintain a high level of customer satisfaction. She was attentive to customer needs and swiftly addressed their concerns, resulting in repeat business. Her excellent communication abilities enabled her to provide clear instructions, helping to avoid any misunderstandings. Anna’s problem-solving skills allowed her to quickly find solutions to customer issues, ensuring their satisfaction.”

Negative Feedback Example for Customer Service Skills

“Tom struggles in providing satisfactory customer service, because he is often more focused on completing tasks than actively listening to customers, which leads to misunderstandings and dissatisfaction. His lack of empathy prevents Tom from building rapport with customers, which negatively impacts their experience. Tom’s problem-solving skills are limited; he usually needs assistance from a manager to handle complicated customer issues.”

See also: Performance feedback phrases for customer service skills : Examples for Customer Focus and Customer Satisfaction

Technical Skills

Positive feedback example for technical skills.

“Alice has consistently demonstrated exceptional technical skills in her role. She exhibits a deep understanding of the latest software and tools, being proficient in their usage. Alice’s ability to troubleshoot complex technical issues and offer effective solutions showcases her strong problem-solving skills. Her mastery of technology has been pivotal in the successful completion of multiple projects, such as collaborating with team members to create a new app.”

Negative Feedback Example for Technical Skills

“Bob has been struggling to keep up with the technical demands of his role. He frequently requires assistance when working with new software or tools, causing delays in project completion. Bob’s inability to learn new technical skills quickly has hindered his effectiveness and impacted the overall team productivity. It is recommended that Bob invests more time in training and development to become proficient in essential technical skills.”

See also: Performance feedback phrases for technical skills : 150+ Examples (Teamwork, Technical Skills, Time Management)

Attention to Detail

Attention to detail is a critical skill that reflects an employee’s ability to achieve accuracy and focus in their job. This skill significantly contributes to their overall performance and helps reduce mistakes in their work.

Positive Feedback Example for Attention to Detail

“Bob consistently demonstrates exceptional attention to detail in his assignments. He has been able to deliver outstanding results in his projects while maintaining high levels of accuracy. His commitment to ensuring all tasks are thoroughly completed before moving on to the next has contributed to a more efficient workflow. Some specific instances of his excellent attention to detail include: Identifying and correcting a crucial error in a report that could have led to inaccurate conclusions being drawn; Meticulously tracking and documenting project progress to ensure all stakeholders were kept informed and up-to-date; Proactively preventing potential misunderstandings by carefully reviewing and proofreading all communication materials before distribution.”

Negative Feedback Example for Attention to Details

“Alice has struggled with attention to detail in her performance. Her work has been marked by occasional errors and oversights, which have led to lost time and resources in correcting these issues. Despite her best efforts, Alice has not shown improvement in this area, and it has negatively impacted her overall performance. Some examples of her lack of attention to detail include:

• Failure to review and double-check calculations, resulting in inaccurate financial reports that needed to be reworked.
• Missing important deadlines due to overlooking key tasks on her project plans.
• Communicating unclear or incorrect information to team members, leading to confusion and lost time in seeking clarification.

In order to improve her attention to detail, Alice could benefit from implementing strategies such as creating detailed checklists, setting aside dedicated review time for her work, and seeking feedback from colleagues to identify potential areas for improvement.”

See also: Performance feedback phrases for attitude : 100+ Performance Evaluation Comments for Attitude, Training Ability, Critical Thinking

Adaptability

Adaptability skills are critical for thriving in fast-paced and ever-changing work environments. It is important for employees to be able to handle change effectively, stay composed under pressure, and swiftly adjust to new situations.

Positive Feedback Example for Adaptability

“Jane has consistently showcased her adaptability skills throughout the past year, particularly during the company-wide shift to remote work. Despite the unexpected challenges, she quickly embraced the new work environment and made necessary adjustments to maintain her productivity levels.

She demonstrated her ability to handle new software tools effectively and collaborated well with her team, ensuring everyone stayed connected and informed. Jane’s proactive approach to learning and embracing change sets a positive example for her peers and has been instrumental in keeping her department running smoothly.”

Negative Feedback Example for Adaptability

“John has struggled with adaptability throughout the year. He often appears resistant to changes implemented within the organization, avoiding new processes and tools. As a consequence, he has fallen behind on multiple projects, causing delays and additional work for his team. John’s inability to cope with change effectively and maintain a positive attitude has raised concerns among his managers and colleagues.

In order to improve his adaptability skills, John should seek opportunities to enhance his flexibility and openness towards new challenges. He should work on developing a proactive mindset, embracing changes within the workplace, and learning new skills. Successfully doing so will contribute to both his personal growth and his team’s success.”

See also: Performance feedback phrases for adaptability : Performance Review Phrases for Quality of Work, Adaptability, Communication

Reliability and Dependability

Positive feedback example for reliability.

“Heather consistently demonstrates a high level of reliability and dependability in her role. She can be trusted to complete tasks accurately and on time, even when faced with tight deadlines. She is often the first one in the office and the last one to leave, working diligently to ensure her projects are completed thoroughly and without errors. In fact, her dependability has made her a go-to person for her teammates, who know they can count on her assistance and collaboration.”

Negative Feedback Example for Reliability

“Although Michael is talented in many aspects of his job, he struggles with reliability and dependability. He is frequently late to work and has missed several deadlines, leaving his team members struggling to finish their tasks. Additionally, Michael has had difficulty in communicating effectively with his team, making it difficult for them to plan reliance on his contributions. This lack of reliability has had a negative impact on overall team performance, and Michael must focus on improving his time management and communication skills to become a reliable and dependable team member.”

See also: Performance feedback phrases for reliability : Performance Feedback Examples for Reliability and Dependability

Organizational Skills

Organizational skills are essential for employees to effectively manage their time, energy, and resources.

Positive Feedback Example for Organizational Skills

“Jane has consistently demonstrated excellent organizational skills throughout the past year. She meticulously plans her daily tasks using a digital task manager, which allows her to prioritize her workload efficiently. This has greatly impacted her ability to meet deadlines and deliver high-quality work.

Jane’s attention to detail has improved the workflow within her team. By implementing a shared calendar, Jane has facilitated better communication and coordination among team members, resulting in fewer scheduling conflicts and improved project efficiency. Her documentation practices have also contributed to a more organized and accessible repository of project files.”

Negative Feedback Example for Organizational Skills

“John has been struggling with organizational skills for several months. He often arrives at meetings unprepared, leading to lost time and decreased productivity. His disorganized workspace has caused difficulty for his coworkers when they need access to shared resources.

John’s inability to prioritize tasks has led to missed deadlines and a decline in the quality of his work. He would benefit from leveraging available tools, such as digital task managers and shared calendars, to develop a system that helps him stay on top of his responsibilities.

By improving his organizational skills, John can increase his overall efficiency, contribute more effectively to team projects, and achieve better results in future performance reviews.”

See also: Performance feedback phrases for planning skills : 169 Performance Review Feedback Phrases for Planning, Leadership, Management Style

How To Write a Manager Performance Review? (with Examples)

• 30 Employee Feedback Examples (Positive & Negative)
• How to Give Performance Feedback? Techniques and Examples (Star Feedback)
• 100 Performance Review Phrases for Job Knowledge, Judgment, Listening Skills
• Quantity Of Work Examples For Performance Reviews (Full Guide)
• 2000+ Performance Review Phrases: The Complete List (Performance Feedback Examples)
• 174 Performance Feedback Examples (Reliability, Integrity, Problem Solving)

Cancer stalked his family. It took years to find the culprit.

In “A Fatal Inheritance,” Lawrence Ingrassia weaves together personal history and scientific discovery.

When Regina Ingrassia died at 42, leaving four children, her death seemed cataclysmic but random. “She was one of 318,500 Americans who died of cancer in 1968,” Lawrence Ingrassia, her second-oldest child, writes. “It was tragic, but what was there to say?”

There would be much more to say, sadly. “Cancer was far from done with my family,” Ingrassia writes in his new book, “ A Fatal Inheritance .” Eventually, he would lose two sisters, a brother and a nephew to malignancies that seemed to strike out of the blue. It would take years for researchers to be able to answer fundamental questions about the killer that stalked his family.

Part memoir, part medical mystery, Ingrassia’s deeply reported book interweaves two narratives. One is the poignant and distressing story of his family, and others, who were repeatedly menaced by something they knew nothing about. The other is the often stirring account of scientists who worked tirelessly to unravel the mystery. Ultimately, researchers identified an inherited cancer syndrome and, eventually, the culprit behind it.

“A Fatal Inheritance” is not a beach book; reading about the agonized families can be painful and frustrating, given there still is no cure for the disorder. But readers will be rewarded with a detailed look at the high — and all-too-human — stakes of cancer research. And the anecdotes about the scientists, by turns inspirational and competitive, leaven the stories of heartbreak.

Ingrassia, a former high-ranking editor at the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times, wisely sets his narratives within the broader framework of cancer research, with its various fads and preoccupations. At the time of his mother’s death, few scientists were focusing on an inherited susceptibility to cancer; viruses were viewed as much more likely to cause the disease. But at the National Cancer Institute, two young epidemiologists — Frederick Pei Li and Joseph F. Fraumeni Jr. — were beginning what would be their lives’ work: studying the fatal predisposition that seemed to run in some families.

Piquing their interest was an unusual case that Li heard about at a dinner party: A young father, named Ned Kilius, was undergoing treatment for leukemia in Baltimore at the same time his 10-month-old son, Darrel, was being seen for a rare soft-tissue cancer in his arm. The patients’ doctors did not see a connection. But Li and Fraumeni were intrigued, constructing a detailed medical history of the Kilius clan that showed an unusually high rate of malignancies. The work was central to their seminal 1969 paper, which suggested the discovery of a previously unknown inherited cancer syndrome. The paper got little attention. But in subsequent years, Li and Fraumeni found additional cancer-prone families, and the disorder came to be known as Li-Fraumeni syndrome .

In 1990, scientists discovered the cause of the cancer syndrome — a mutation in a gene called p53 that normally suppresses tumors but, if defective, can allow cancer to grow uncontrollably. If a parent has the mutation, a child has a 50 percent chance of inheriting it, drastically raising the risk of cancer.

Only about 5 to 10 percent of cancers are caused by inherited cancer disorders, Ingrassia writes, and Li-Fraumeni syndrome is among the rarest. But research into the condition has provided important insights into cancer mechanics in general.

While lucidly describing the science involved, Ingrassia keeps the focus on the beating heart of the book — the patients, many of whom were stricken at a young age, often more than once. Darrel Kilius, who as a baby had survived the soft-tissue cancer by having part of his right arm removed, was battered by tumors in his 20s and died at 29.

The Ingrassia family fared no better.

In the 1980s, Lawrence writes, his younger sisters died at 24 and 32. His nephew Charlie was diagnosed at 2 with the first of three different cancers. In 1997, Charlie’s father — Paul Ingrassia, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist for the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones Newswires — developed early-stage lung cancer at 46. (I knew Paul, as we both worked at the Journal, but was never aware of his health situation.)

Sometimes, the brothers wondered why their family was so unlucky. Had their father, a research chemist, inadvertently carried toxic chemicals home on his clothes? They were unaware of Li-Fraumeni syndrome — as were many doctors — and genetic testing outside of studies was years away.

But in late 2014, the mystery was finally resolved. Paul underwent genetic testing and was positive for the p53 mutation, a huge blow. His brother, tested later, was negative, a big relief. When Lawrence emailed his brother about the fortuitous result, Paul quickly responded, “Great news!!!”

There are other moments of grace and courage. In 2019, while Paul battled pancreatic cancer, his son Charlie fought bone cancer that required the amputation of his leg. A week before Charlie died at 39, he renewed his Chicago Cubs baseball tickets. A few months later, 69-year-old Paul called friends from the ICU to say goodbye.

Today, Ingrassia writes, there are a few glimmers of hope for people with the disorder. Intensive screening is detecting some cancers early enough to save lives. And the gene-editing technology CRISPR might someday be a useful tool for treating the condition.

But that is far down the road. When Paul was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, he received harsh chemotherapy, not a high-tech game changer.

Still, Paul was not one to complain, his brother writes. Accepting a prestigious journalism award for lifetime achievement a few years before he died, Paul deadpanned, “I often think my biggest lifetime achievement is simply having a lifetime.”

Laurie McGinley is a former health reporter and editor at The Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.

A Fatal Inheritance

How a Family Misfortune Revealed a Deadly Medical Mystery

By Lawrence Ingrassia

Henry Holt. 320 pp. $29.99

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.

MIT Technology Review

• Newsletters

How I learned to stop worrying and love fake meat

Let’s stop inventing reasons to reject cultured meat and other protein alternatives that could dramatically cut climate emissions.

• James Temple archive page

Fixing our collective meat problem is one of the trickiest challenges in addressing climate change—and for some baffling reason, the world seems intent on making the task even harder.

The latest example occurred last week, when Florida governor Ron DeSantis signed a law banning the production, sale, and transportation of cultured meat across the Sunshine State. 

“Florida is fighting back against the global elite’s plan to force the world to eat meat grown in a petri dish or bugs to achieve their authoritarian goals,” DeSantis seethed in a statement.

Alternative meat and animal products—be they lab-grown or plant-based—offer a far more sustainable path to mass-producing protein than raising animals for milk or slaughter. Yet again and again, politicians, dietitians, and even the press continue to devise ways to portray these products as controversial, suspect, or substandard. No matter how good they taste or how much they might reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, there’s always some new obstacle standing in the way—in this case, Governor DeSantis, wearing a not-at-all-uncomfortable smile.  

The new law clearly has nothing to do with the creeping threat of authoritarianism (though for more on that, do check out his administration’s crusade to ban books about gay penguins). First and foremost it is an act of political pandering, a way to coddle Florida’s sizable cattle industry, which he goes on to mention in the statement.

Cultured meat is seen as a threat to the livestock industry because animals are only minimally involved in its production. Companies grow cells originally extracted from animals in a nutrient broth and then form them into nuggets, patties or fillets. The US Department of Agriculture has already given its blessing to two companies , Upside Foods and Good Meat, to begin selling cultured chicken products to consumers. Israel recently became the first nation to sign off on a beef version.

It’s still hard to say if cultured meat will get good enough and cheap enough anytime soon to meaningfully reduce our dependence on cattle, chicken, pigs, sheep, goats, and other animals for our protein and our dining pleasure. And it’s sure to take years before we can produce it in ways that generate significantly lower emissions than standard livestock practices today.

But there are high hopes it could become a cleaner and less cruel way of producing meat, since it wouldn’t require all the land, food, and energy needed to raise, feed, slaughter, and process animals today. One study found that cultured meat could reduce emissions per kilogram of meat 92% by 2030, even if cattle farming also achieves substantial improvements.

Those sorts of gains are essential if we hope to ease the rising dangers of climate change, because meat, dairy, and cheese production are huge contributors to greenhouse-gas emissions.

DeSantis and politicians in other states that may follow suit, including Alabama and Tennessee, are raising the specter of mandated bug-eating and global-elite string-pulling to turn cultured meat into a cultural issue, and kill the industry in its infancy. 

But, again, it’s always something. I’ve heard a host of other arguments across the political spectrum directed against various alternative protein products, which also include plant-based burgers, cheeses, and milks, or even cricket-derived powders and meal bars . Apparently these meat and dairy alternatives shouldn’t be highly processed, mass-produced, or genetically engineered, nor should they ever be as unhealthy as their animal-based counterparts. 

In effect, we are setting up tests that almost no products can pass, when really all we should ask of alternative proteins is that they be safe, taste good, and cut climate pollution.

The meat of the matter

Here’s the problem. 

Livestock production generates more than 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide, making up 14.5% of the world’s overall climate emissions, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.

Beef, milk, and cheese production are, by far, the biggest problems, representing some 65% of the sector’s emissions. We burn down carbon-dense forests to provide cows with lots of grazing land; then they return the favor by burping up staggering amounts of methane, one of the most powerful greenhouse gases. Florida’s cattle population alone, for example, could generate about 180 million pounds of methane every year, as calculated from standard per-animal emissions . 

In an earlier paper , the World Resources Institute noted that in the average US diet, beef contributed 3% of the calories but almost half the climate pollution from food production. (If you want to take a single action that could meaningfully ease your climate footprint, read that sentence again.)

The added challenge is that the world’s population is both growing and becoming richer, which means more people can afford more meat. 

There are ways to address some of the emissions from livestock production without cultured meat or plant-based burgers, including developing supplements that reduce methane burps and encouraging consumers to simply reduce meat consumption. Even just switching from beef to chicken can make a huge difference .

Let’s clear up one matter, though. I can’t imagine a politician in my lifetime, in the US or most of the world, proposing a ban on meat and expecting to survive the next election. So no, dear reader. No one’s coming for your rib eye. If there’s any attack on personal freedoms and economic liberty here, DeSantis is the one waging it by not allowing Floridians to choose for themselves what they want to eat.

But there is a real problem in need of solving. And the grand hope of companies like Beyond Meat, Upside Foods, Miyoko’s Creamery, and dozens of others is that we can develop meat, milk, and cheese alternatives that are akin to EVs: that is to say, products that are good enough to solve the problem without demanding any sacrifice from consumers or requiring government mandates. (Though subsidies always help.)

The good news is the world is making some real progress in developing substitutes that increasingly taste like, look like, and have (with apologies for the snooty term) the “mouthfeel” of the traditional versions, whether they’ve been developed from animal cells or plants. If they catch on and scale up, it could make a real dent in emissions—with the bonus of reducing animal suffering, environmental damage, and the spillover of animal disease into the human population.

The bad news is we can’t seem to take the wins when we get them. 

The blue cheese blues

For lunch last Friday, I swung by the Butcher’s Son Vegan Delicatessen & Bakery in Berkeley, California, and ordered a vegan Buffalo chicken sandwich with a blue cheese on the side that was developed by Climax Foods , also based in Berkeley.

Late last month, it emerged that the product had, improbably, clinched the cheese category in the blind taste tests of the prestigious Good Food awards, as the Washington Post revealed .

Let’s pause here to note that this is a stunning victory for vegan cheeses, a clear sign that we can use plants to produce top-notch artisanal products, indistinguishable even to the refined palates of expert gourmands. If a product is every bit as tasty and satisfying as the original but can be produced without milking methane-burping animals, that’s a big climate win.

But sadly, that’s not where the story ended.

After word leaked out that the blue cheese was a finalist, if not the winner, the Good Food Foundation seems to have added a rule that didn’t exist when the competition began but which disqualified Climax Blue , the Post reported.

I have no special insights into what unfolded behind the scenes. But it reads at least a little as if the competition concocted an excuse to dethrone a vegan cheese that had bested its animal counterparts and left traditionalists aghast. 

That victory might have done wonders to help promote acceptance of the Climax product, if not the wider category. But now the story is the controversy. And that’s a shame. Because the cheese is actually pretty good. 

I’m no professional foodie, but I do have a lifetime of expertise born of stubbornly refusing to eat any salad dressing other than blue cheese. In my own taste test, I can report it looked and tasted like mild blue cheese, which is all it needs to do.

A beef about burgers

Banning a product or changing a cheese contest’s rules after determining the winner are both bad enough. But the reaction to alternative proteins that has left me most befuddled is the media narrative that formed around the latest generation of plant-based burgers soon after they started getting popular a few years ago. Story after story would note, in the tone of a bold truth-teller revealing something new each time: Did you know these newfangled plant-based burgers aren’t actually all that much healthier than the meat variety? 

To which I would scream at my monitor: THAT WAS NEVER THE POINT!

The world has long been perfectly capable of producing plant-based burgers that are better for you, but the problem is that they tend to taste like plants. The actual innovation with the more recent options like Beyond Burger or Impossible Burger is that they look and taste like the real thing but can be produced with a dramatically smaller climate footprint .

That’s a big enough win in itself. 

If I were a health reporter, maybe I’d focus on these issues too. And if health is your personal priority, you should shop for a different plant-based patty (or I might recommend a nice salad, preferably with blue cheese dressing).

But speaking as a climate reporter, expecting a product to ease global warming, taste like a juicy burger, and also be low in salt, fat, and calories is absurd. You may as well ask a startup to conduct sorcery.

More important, making a plant-based burger healthier for us may also come at the cost of having it taste like a burger. Which would make it that much harder to win over consumers beyond the niche of vegetarians and thus have any meaningful impact on emissions. WHICH IS THE POINT!

It’s incredibly difficult to convince consumers to switch brands and change behaviors, even for a product as basic as toothpaste or toilet paper. Food is trickier still, because it’s deeply entwined with local culture, family traditions, festivals and celebrations. Whether we find a novel food product to be yummy or yucky is subjective and highly subject to suggestion. 

And so I’m ending with a plea. Let’s grant ourselves the best shot possible at solving one of the hardest, most urgent problems before us. Treat bans and political posturing with the ridicule they deserve. Reject the argument that any single product must, or can, solve all the problems related to food, health, and the environment.

Climate change and energy

The problem with plug-in hybrids their drivers..

Plug-in hybrids are often sold as a transition to EVs, but new data from Europe shows we’re still underestimating the emissions they produce.

• Casey Crownhart archive page

Harvard has halted its long-planned atmospheric geoengineering experiment

The decision follows years of controversy and the departure of one of the program’s key researchers.

How thermal batteries are heating up energy storage

The systems, which can store clean energy as heat, were chosen by readers as the 11th Breakthrough Technology of 2024.

These artificial snowdrifts protect seal pups from climate change

The human-built habitats shield the pups from predators and the freezing cold, but they’re threatened by global temperature rise.

• Matthew Ponsford archive page

Stay connected

Get the latest updates from mit technology review.

Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.

Thank you for submitting your email!

It looks like something went wrong.

We’re having trouble saving your preferences. Try refreshing this page and updating them one more time. If you continue to get this message, reach out to us at [email protected] with a list of newsletters you’d like to receive.