‘Reviewer 2’ and Me: Lessons from Publishing My First Book

For as long as I can remember, I’ve wanted to write a book. I have a vivid memory of my Year 8 English teacher returning a piece of homework to me with the words ‘when you write a book, please send me a signed copy’ (thanks, Mr. D.).

In August 2024, after a lengthy process involving proposals, sample chapters, proposal peer review, and more biscuits than I care to count, I finally signed a book contract… and Navigating Careers Beyond Academia: A Practical Handbook for Doctoral and Postdoctoral Researchers is out this month!

The part of my book journey over the past two years I really want to talk about here is peer review. Having spent ten years supporting researchers, I’ve seen my fair share of ‘Reviewer 2’ memes. So, when the reviews on my manuscript came back (all 14 pages of them…!), the sense of dread was real.

Fortunately, a decent amount of the feedback was constructive. Many of the suggestions genuinely improved the book, helping to make sections clearer, tighter, and more inclusive. And more importantly, my mental health remained intact. Great success.

The experience did, however, leave me reflecting on how we handle critique more generally. Receiving detailed feedback on something you’ve invested years in creating can be emotionally tough, however experienced you might be. So, to help yourself out:

• Set aside time to ‘absorb’ the feedback. Resist the temptation to open review comments between meetings or while you’re halfway through another task. Had I done this, I wouldn’t have skim-read part of a comment, thought it was critical, then spent the rest of the day distracted by it. When I went back and read it properly, the comment was actually pretty innocuous, and I’d wasted a day feeling stressed about nothing. Process first, act second.
• Start with what is working. In a classic careers adviser move, I copied all the positive comments into a separate document and read those first: not because I was in denial about the critiques, but to give me a bit of a boost before tackling the trickier stuff. This was also helpful context for reading the rest of the comments; if one reviewer contests something another reviewer loves, then you can make the assessment who you agree with, and why. Peer review is not about achieving universal approval (which is impossible anyway).
• If you have a methodical mind like mine, I highly recommend sorting the rest of the reviewers’ comments into three sections depending on how laborious they are to address: ‘simple,’ ‘middling,’ and ‘complex.’ Seeing that only about 6 or 7 of the comments were ‘complex’ made things more digestible, and what might otherwise have felt like a mountain of revisions became a manageable project plan.
• Develop what I have decided to call a “reviewdar” (like a radar, but for reviews). One of the big things the peer review process highlighted to me was that whilst some suggestions will genuinely develop your content, others are simply examples of reviewers saying ‘well, this isn’t how I would’ve done this.’ There’s a difference, and your reviewdar helps you distinguish between the two. The majority of suggestions deserve consideration, but not every suggestion needs to be followed.

As for me, after several years of blogging, planning, writing, rewriting, and learning as I went, it’s exciting (and slightly surreal) to finally get to arrange my own book launch. Oh, and one of my (signed) author copies will be on its way to Mr. D. shortly.