Understanding the purpose of feedback
1. Feedback is information meant to strengthen your work. It is not personal criticism. Supervisors give feedback because they want you to reach a higher standard and believe you can reach it.
2. Recognize that feedback is normal: all researchers revise repeatedly. Senior collaborators give each other extensive feedback. Senior academics receive major revisions from peer-reviewers. No feedback is not a good thing. Feedback is a standard, expected, part of scholarship.
Managing emotional responses to feedback
3. Pause before reacting: Initial defensiveness is normal. Take time before responding so you can evaluate comments calmly and avoid emotional replies.
4. Separate yourself from the work: Comments about unclear writing or weak reasoning refer to the manuscript, not your intelligence or potential. Your personal identity is not the same as the draft document.
5. Manage emotional responses. Assume positive intent, acknowledge any discomfort, and seek peer support if needed. Developing emotional resilience is a core part of the PhD process.
Taking on and implementing feedback
6. Identify the type of feedback: Determine whether feedback is conceptual (ideas), structural (organization), methodological (technical accuracy), or about writing/presentation. Categorizing comments helps you respond effectively.
7. Ask clarifying questions. If anything is unclear, summarise your understanding and ask for confirmation. Clarifying ensures your revisions align with what is needed.
8. Distinguish high-level from line-level issues: Address big-picture concerns (e.g. argument structure) before small edits. Fixing high-level issues often changes or removes minor comments.
9. Learn how to integrate multiple feedback inputs: it is normal to get feedback from co-authors, supervisors and/or peer reviewers that feels like a lot to process and may be conflicting. Input from others is a microcosm of the wider scientific community. The feedback comes from different perspectives and your task as a junior researcher is to integrate these inputs and produce a better overall document that stands up even stronger to wider scientific scrutiny.
10. Prioritize and make a plan. Group related comments, decide what to address first, and create a realistic revision plan. Tackle big picture improvements early.