New Guides Aim to Make Peer Review Less Combative and More Constructive

A new editorial published in Conservation Physiology offers expert guidance on how authors should respond to peer review—a follow-up to a widely read guide on how to write constructive peer reviews published by the same team in December 2025.

Writing and responding to peer review is a fundamental part of academic publishing, but formal training opportunities and best practice guides remain rare and inconsistent. The new editorial addresses that gap with practical advice on how authors can navigate the process more effectively.

Key guidance in the editorial covers how to "pick their battles," disagree constructively, seek clarification from reviewers, structure responses carefully, and maintain professional courtesy—with attention to the potential impacts on reputation and mental wellbeing. Additional tips address language barriers, keeping editors informed, and how to handle manuscripts that may have been unjustly rejected.

"A core message of these editorials is that the stereotypical view of peer review as a combative fight between authors and reviewers to get scientific work published doesn't need to hold," said Jeff Clements of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Gulf Region), lead author of the first editorial.

"The goal of peer review is not to crush souls—it is to constructively evaluate the quality of scientific data and elevate a piece of written science to be the best version it possibly can be."

Sean Tomlinson of Curtin University, Australia, lead author of the new editorial, said the two guides drew on the team's experiences both as researchers and as editors. "We all received our fair shares of 'Reviewer 2' types of assessments, which are at best unhelpful, and at worst damaging to the self-esteem of the authors, especially authors early in their research careers," he said.

Tomlinson noted that the strong reception to the first editorial made clear that guidance for reviewers alone was not enough. "It was evident that we couldn't offer clear and explicit guidance solely to the reviewers, without also making it clear to authors how to respond to peer review clearly, respectfully, and above all strategically, in order to streamline the review and publication process."