'For the most part it works': Exploring how authors navigate peer review feedback

Area of Science:

• Health Professions Education Research
• Scientific Communication
• Academic Publishing

Background:

• Peer review is crucial for research improvement but presents challenges in feedback exchange.
• Authors face difficulties interpreting and responding to peer review feedback.
• This study examines how feedback functions when optimal conditions for effectiveness are unmet.

Purpose of the Study:

• To explore how health professions education researchers interpret and respond to peer review feedback.
• To understand the factors influencing the productive uptake of peer review feedback.
• To develop a conceptual model of feedback functioning in this context.

Main Methods:

• Constructivist grounded theory methodology.
• Interviews with 17 recently published health professions education researchers.
• Concurrent data collection and analysis using constant comparison.

Main Results:

• Authors perceive peer review as emotionally taxing, questioning its consistency and credibility.
• Time, team support, experience, and autonomy mitigate threats to feedback effectiveness.
• Perceived reviewer engagement and cultural norms enhance authors' willingness to respond productively.

Conclusions:

• Effective peer review feedback involves balancing threats with countermeasures.
• Autonomy and normalized professional responsibility are key to productive feedback engagement.
• Findings have implications beyond peer review, influencing engagement with feedback in professional settings.