From Telling to Crafting: An Analysis of Peer Review Feedback and Revision Processes of Emerging Scholars Writing for Publication

Writing for publication is a formidable challenge for emerging scholars (graduate students and early career faculty) tied to high-stakes outcomes. One substantial challenge in writing for publication is successfully navigating the blind peer review process. This study focuses on the revision experiences of nine emerging scholars who have successfully published their first solo-authored publication and uses multiple datasets, including an interview and an analysis of publication documents (initial article submission, editorial feedback, revised manuscripts, and final published works). We triangulate between direct observations of writing and revision processes, analysis of peer review and editorial feedback, and self-reported perceptions and emerging scholars’ experiences. Our results include a taxonomy of the most common feedback and revision processes for emerging scholars, including frequently requested and challenging scholarly moves. Drawing upon Kellogg’s (J Writ Res, 1(1), 1–26, 2008) framework of knowledge telling to transforming to crafting, we demonstrate how emerging scholars’ understanding of writing for a disciplinary audience aligns with both the “what to say” and “how to say” aspects of publishing, advancing them from the transforming stage to crafting stage. We also describe the social support systems that emerging scholars use to navigate peer review feedback and engage in effective revision. From these findings, we offer recommendations for supporting graduate students and early career faculty in building confidence and knowledge, including enhancing writing instruction and publication courses, creating structured mentoring opportunities, facilitating writing groups and peer support networks, and cultivating positive dispositions and mindsets towards publication. Contributions of this work include a comprehensive view of how emerging scholars successfully navigate blind review processes and receive feedback, which allows faculty mentors and graduate programs to strengthen their writing for publication support.