For researchers, few emails carry quite the same emotional weight as a journal’s decision on a manuscript. And when the verdict is “revise and resubmit,” the accompanying reviewer comments can provoke everything from relief to frustration and self-doubt.

A new commentary by UW–Madison School of Education’s Xueli Wang argues that researchers shouldn’t ignore those emotions. Instead, recognizing them and then approaching reviewer feedback differently can help scholars strengthen both their writing and their ideas.

In “Making Reviewer 2 Your Thought Partner: Navigating the Emotionality of Revise and Resubmit,” published in Teacher’s College Record, Wang examines a part of scholarly publishing that she says often goes unspoken: the emotional experience of peer review. Drawing on her experiences as an author, reviewer, editor and mentor, Wang offers practical strategies for navigating criticism while maintaining the intellectual integrity of one’s work.

“When we are in the peer review process, especially when a revise and resubmit decision comes with a critically worded review, it can be hard to see the larger thinking or conversation that produced that feedback,” said Wang, the Barbara and Glenn Thompson Endowed Professor in Educational Leadership and a researcher in the School’s Wisconsin Center for Education Research (WCER). “Easily, we can experience the review as solely a harsh judgment instead of a part of a generative scholarly process. But peer review can be deeply formative. What we receive is a window into something bigger that gives us useful data to see our work differently, strengthen it, and sometimes take our thinking in a productive direction we had not considered before.”

Wang was motivated in part by watching early-career researchers and doctoral students struggle after receiving difficult reviews. Scholars receive extensive training in research methods, argument and writing, she noted in the commentary, but often have much less preparation for handling the emotional dimensions of having their work critically evaluated.

Drawing on multiple perspectives and relevant literature, Wang’s advice begins with reframing the relationship between author and reviewer. Instead of seeing the proverbial “Reviewer 2,” academic shorthand for a particularly tough reviewer, as a hostile gatekeeper, Wang suggests approaching the reviewer as a potential thought partner: an informed reader who has encountered the manuscript and emerged with questions or concerns.

Even when a reviewer misunderstands an argument, that misunderstanding can provide useful information. It may reveal a place where an author needs to explain an idea more clearly, provide additional context or better articulate why the work matters. The goal, Wang argues in the commentary, isn’t to accept every criticism or make every requested change. Rather, it is to understand the concern behind the comment and decide how best to address it.

In the published article, Wang also offers practical advice. Give yourself time to experience your initial reaction before you begin revising. On a second reading, identify the underlying concern behind each comment rather than immediately accepting or rejecting the suggested solution. Look for patterns across reviewers, and distinguish substantive concerns from preferences or misunderstandings. Most importantly, keep sight of what the paper is ultimately trying to contribute.

The responsibility for making peer review more productive doesn’t rest solely with authors. Wang also asks reviewers and editors to consider how others might experience their feedback and decisions. Rigorous review can still be demanding, she argued, while treating authors as developing scholars whose ideas deserve serious, constructive engagement.

Ultimately, Wang’s article presents peer review as something bigger than a hurdle on the way to publication. At its best, it can become an opportunity for intellectual exchange and mutual scholarly development.