GIVE: A Framework of Assumptions for Constructive Review Feedback.

M of the scientific community give feedback to one another through various formal and informal mechanisms. In some cases, including formal peer review of research manuscripts, providing critical feedback to authors is accompanied by a responsibility to maintain high rigor and quality in scientific output, to safeguard public trust in science, and to make appropriate publication recommendations to journal editors. Difficult decisions must be made that account for a study’s strengths, flaws, and limitations, and authors often face negative outcomes. Regardless of the editorial decision, however, unconstructive review comments can dishearten authors, engender an adversarial environment, and impede scientific progress. Thorough, critical evaluations of scientific work need not be distinct from constructive, sensitive, and helpful feedback. Many good reviewers already make this connection, at least implicitly. However, employing an explicit framework can ensure that we consistently aim toward more constructive reviews. Here, we describe such a framework based on a collection of basic assumptions designed to help us all deliver comments (including negative ones) constructively. We conclude with some thoughts on the value and benefits of this approach. ■ THE GIVE FRAMEWORK: ASSUMPTIONS FOR CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK