Quick Guide Incorporating Peer Review Feedback

Will I be expected to implement all of the reviewers’ recommended changes?

The short answer is no. Your project editor may suggest some changes based on the peer review feedback; however, if certain changes would compromise the text’s relevance or applicability to your own course or students’ needs, then you may choose not to incorporate that feedback. We want the text to be, first and foremost, an effective learning tool for you and your students.

With that said, we do encourage you to seriously consider any feedback with the broader market in mind, as this could help elevate your book’s appeal to potential adopters. Much of what reviewers comment on can be viewed constructively, if not always taken literally. We would love to see your book excel through adoption beyond your course and your university, and the added perspective reviewers provide can help to increase this likelihood.

What is not the point of peer review?

We specifically indicate to peer reviewers that the text they are reviewing is a draft or preliminary edition, meaning that it may not yet have copyediting, design, typesetting, or proofreading incorporated—treatments that are typically planned for the first edition. With that in mind, we ask that comments pertaining to syntax, grammar, general typos, formatting, or aesthetics be excluded.

Cognella’s expedited peer review process may not allow time for an in-depth review of every chapter or section of the text, instead focusing on a high-level view of the text. As mentioned above, we ask peer reviewers to consider the manuscript holistically and to comment more broadly on the content and areas for further development.

Are Cognella peer reviews blind?

Yes. While we do ask our authors to suggest some of the potential reviewers who will be invited to participate, we may also be inviting additional reviewer candidates to participate. Once the reviews are completed, we will provide you with anonymized, consolidated comments that allow you to focus on the feedback itself, rather than the person who provided it.