This is What Substantive Feedback Actually Looks Like (An Example of a Real Manuscript)
In my writing-intensive classes, students often tell me, “I’ve never had feedback like this!” Because I had the good fortune to receive equal parts encouraging and constructive feedback starting with my elementary and high school English teachers, all the way to my dissertation committee, I’ve been able to enjoy a rewarding career as a nurse scientist and continue my lifelong process of writing development.
When working with writers, I am honest. I never say that the process of scientific writing is easy, but it is possible to develop processes and habits that make it manageable. Perhaps most importantly, writers must expect and accept that feedback – and application of that feedback in revisions – is the key to consistent improvement; and to improve, feedback must be substantive.
What is substantive feedback?
We’ve all received encouraging comments such as “good job”, “excellent work”, and “nice try.” Alternatively, we might have received vague comments that indicate that our writing style is unclear, unprofessional, or poor. While the latter can be demoralizing and discourage future development, vague, encouraging comments alone can leave the writer without the guidance needed to grow and improve.
Balancing encouraging comments when strengths are identified with constructive suggestions for improvement can preserve the writer’s motivation and sense of self-efficacy. Constructive or substantive feedback identifies specific areas for improvement and pairs it with recommendations for what to change and how. It is achieved by a peer, faculty member, mentor, or expert reviewer who can put in the time to provide a thorough line-by-line review, making comments in the exact location of the paper where there is a need for attention.
The most common issues I find as an educator and editor
Since teaching my first writing-intensive research course in 2010, to my current work as an editor, I’ve read thousands of manuscripts. Using one of my own manuscripts, I created an example of the type of substantive feedback I give to writers (highlighting the text in the area the suggestion should be addressed and adding a detailed comment for how to make the edits). In this example, I provide feedback in alignment with my Scientific Writing Assessment rubric, particularly in the areas of organization (use of headings and logical flow), substantive content, adherence to structure (i.e., IMRaD, SQUIRE, or PRISMA), and format and style. In my work, I also find that the use of primary sources, paraphrasing (or plagiarism), critical appraisal, and synthesis are also difficult skills for writers to master.
FYI: The manuscript example used is a now-published paper. I’ve linked the manuscript as it was submitted to the journal before peer review. To view the final version of the manuscript as published, see Comparing characteristics of underrepresented versus majority student groups in US nursing programs in the Journal of Professional Nursing. Have a look at the 1) example feedback, 2) the pre-publication version, and 3) the published version after the influence of editorial and peer review.
Could this sort of feedback help in your writing development as a scientist or student? If yes, contact me for a free consultation at publicationaccelerator@gmail.com.
Michelle DeCoux Hampton, PhD, RN
Founder, 1:1 Scientific Writing Coach, and Publication Consultation
The Publication Accelerator