Constructive Feedback

Constructive feedback is the essence of advancing the scientific enterprise. It goes beyond mere critique and criticism, instead generously providing guidance for refining, for deepening, for strengthening, for improving. This type of input requires a generous reviewer, one who views critique as an opportunity for improvement rather than denigration. It is reflective of an individual who is willing to share their knowledge and expertise to help make the science─and the scientists─better. This type of feedback can offer a blueprint for enhancement, helping authors to elevate their research and enhance its impact. Constructive feedback begins with a mindset, one that sees potential in every submission and each review as an opportunity for growth and collaboration. In honoring the Peer Review Award winners, we celebrate individuals who embody this ideal, providing feedback that is as supportive as it is rigorous. They demonstrate an exceptional ability to identify strengths and weaknesses in submissions, all while providing authors with actionable guidance to improve their work. In this way, they play a critical role in advancing the quality of academic literature and fostering a culture of intellectual growth. This approach is crucial not just for individual papers but also for the scientific community as a whole to sustain and enhance public trust in our scientific contributions. A reviewer’s insightful critique can help shape the direction of future research, spark a new idea, and enable innovation. Constructive feedback fosters an environment in which knowledge evolves collaboratively, benefiting from the collective wisdom of the community. Ultimately, the Peer Review Award winners remind us that constructive feedback is not about finding faults; it is not just about evaluating, but rather enhancing. Constructive feedback is about building the knowledge basis, in building trust in science, in building the next generation of scholars. In recognizing their efforts, we celebrate these reviewers for building our community. Super Reviewer Award Bin Chen, Beijing Normal University Razi Epsztein, Technion Israel Institute of Technology Mingliang Fang, Nanyang Technological University Peter Herzsprung, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ Carrie McDonough, Carnegie Mellon University Daisuke Minakata, Michigan Technological University Carsten Prasse, Johns Hopkins University Wenhui Qiu, South University of Science and Technology Collin Ward, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Han-Chao Zhang, University of Science and Technology of China Bingsheng Zhou, Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences Shulin Zhuang, Zhejiang University Excellence in Review Qiqing Chen, East China Normal University Xinyi Cui, Nanjing University Jeseth Delgado Vela, Duke University Miriam Diamond, University of Toronto Lin Du, Shandong University Elizabeth Edwards, University of Toronto Satoshi Endo, National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES) Aleksandar Goranov, Old Dominion University Atsuko Ikeda, Hokkaido University Sai Liang, Guangdong University of Technology Fudong Liu, University of California Riverside Runzeng Liu, Shandong University Jinxing Ma, Guangdong University of Technology Garrett McKay, Texas A&M University Andrew Meharg, Queen’s University Belfast Bingcai Pan, Nanjing University Corinne Scown, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Wenpo Shan, Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences Virender Sharma, Texas A&M University Elsie Sunderland, Harvard University Tiezheng Tong, Colorado State University Jason White, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station Lingtian Xie, South China Normal University Xin Yang, Sun Yat-Sen University Zhe Yang, The University of Queensland Ran Yin, Nanjing University Bo Yuan, Norwegian University of Science and Technology Songhu Yuan, China University of Geosciences Bofan Zhang, Tokyo Metropolitan University Hao Zhu, Tulane University This article has not yet been cited by other publications.