I once had a paper under review for 1.5 years. Yes, you read that right—18 months of waiting. At first, I checked my email every day, hoping for an update. After six months, I sent a polite follow-up. Still under review. By the one-year mark, I had almost given up hope.
Peer review can be a slow, frustrating, and sometimes unfair process. But it can also be an opportunity for growth—if you know how to navigate it.
In this section, we’ll cover:
✅ What peer reviewers actually look for in qualitative research
✅ Common biases qualitative researchers face in peer review
✅ How to defend your methodology when reviewers misunderstand it
✅ The key to writing a response letter that leads to acceptance
Let’s dive in.
- What Peer Reviewers Are Looking For
Once your paper makes it past the editor, peer reviewers assess its quality, rigor, and contribution. Understanding their expectations helps you craft a manuscript that minimizes criticism and maximizes impact.
🔍 Key Review Criteria
✅ Methodological Rigor – Is your research design appropriate? Does it align with qualitative inquiry rather than quantitative expectations?
✅ Clarity & Justification – Have you clearly explained why you used a specific qualitative approach?
✅ Theoretical Contribution – Does your study add something new? Does it engage with existing literature?
✅ Findings & Data Presentation – Are your themes supported by participant quotes? Have you provided interpretation beyond raw data?
✅ Writing & Structure – Is your manuscript well-organized and easy to follow?
✅ Ethical Considerations – Have you addressed consent, privacy, and data management?
💡 Pro Tip: A strong manuscript anticipates reviewer concerns before submission. If your methods are unconventional, make sure your justification is crystal clear in the initial submission.
- Common Reviewer Biases Against Qualitative Research
I once received a review that said, “Your sample size is too small for generalizability.” Another reviewer suggested that I conduct intercoder reliability tests—for reflexive thematic analysis!
Even experienced reviewers can apply quantitative expectations to qualitative research, leading to frustrating and misguided feedback.
🚨 The Biggest Challenges in Qualitative Peer Review
❌ Sample Size Criticism – Some reviewers expect large samples, failing to recognize that qualitative research prioritizes depth over breadth.
❌ Demands for Generalizability – Reviewers may ask for findings to be universally applicable, overlooking the contextual nature of qualitative work.
❌ Expectations of Coding Reliability – Some insist on intercoder reliability, even in interpretive methods where researcher reflexivity is key.
❌ Overemphasis on Reporting Checklists – While COREQ and other checklists are useful, rigid adherence can reduce qualitative research to a mechanical process.
❌ Contradictory Feedback – One reviewer says your paper is too theoretical, while another says it lacks theoretical depth. (been there!)
💡 How to Address These Issues:
✔ Preempt misunderstandings by clearly explaining your methodological choices.
✔ Defend qualitative rigor using established research (e.g., Braun & Clarke, 2022).
✔ Engage the editor if a reviewer imposes inappropriate or contradictory feedback.
3️. How to Deal with Reviewer Feedback Like a Pro
Some reviews feel like a punch to the gut. Others are incredibly constructive. And then there are those where one reviewer loves your paper, and the other thinks it’s terrible.
So how do you respond effectively?
✔ Acknowledge valid critiques – If reviewers point out unclear sections, improve them.
✔ Push back when necessary – If feedback is methodologically inappropriate, defend your choices using literature.
✔ Clarify misunderstandings – Restate your research goals and methodology to clear up confusion.
✔ Seek editorial support – If reviewer feedback is inconsistent or unfair, editors can step in.
💡 Understanding reviewer expectations is crucial. But what happens when feedback is contradictory or unfair? In Part 3, I’ll show you how to craft effective responses—including a Reviewer Response Table to organize your replies strategically.
4️. How to Handle Major Revisions & Rejections
📌 If You Receive Major Revisions:
🔹 Prioritize key issues – Focus on methodological clarity, coherence, and theoretical contributions first.
🔹 Be selective in compliance – Accept useful feedback, but push back on methodologically incoherent requests.
🔹 Use literature to justify decisions – Cite qualitative research standards to educate reviewers.
📌 If Your Paper Is Rejected:
🔹 Assess the feedback – Was it a journal mismatch or a methodological misunderstanding?
🔹 Revise & resubmit elsewhere – If rejection stems from bias, find a journal better aligned with qualitative research.
🔹 Seek mentorship – Discuss options with colleagues or supervisors.
🔹 Don’t take it personally – Rejections happen to everyone. Even top researchers.
💡 Pro Tip: Keep a publishing pipeline—always have one paper under review, one in revision, and one in preparation. This reduces the emotional impact of rejection.
Final Thoughts: Reframing Peer Review as Growth
Even my worst reviews have made my work stronger. One paper that was rejected four times eventually found a home in a high-impact journal. Another required a full data reanalysis, which led to deeper insights I hadn’t seen before.
Instead of seeing peer review as an obstacle, view it as a chance to refine your work. Even unfair feedback teaches resilience.
📢 Next Up: Part 3 – Mastering the Art of Revisions and Resubmissions
Now that you understand reviewer expectations, it’s time to focus on the practical side of revisions. In Part 3, we’ll cover:
📌 How to write a persuasive response letter to reviewers
📌 Which revision requests to accept and which to challenge
📌 How to handle resubmissions and increase your chances of acceptance
📌 Dealing with reviewer fatigue and emotional burnout
💬 What’s the toughest peer review comment you’ve received? How did you handle it? Let’s talk below!
References
Clarke, V., Braun, V., Adams, J., Callaghan, J. E. M., LaMarre, A., & Semlyen, J. (2024). “Being really confidently wrong”: Qualitative researchers’ experiences of methodologically incongruent peer review feedback. Qualitative Psychology.
Duke, D., Denicolo, P., & Henslee, E. (n.d.). How can you make the peer review process work for you? In Publishing for Impact.
Herber, O. R., Bradbury-Jones, C., Böling, S., Combes, S., Hirt, J., Koop, Y., & Taylor, J. (2020). What feedback do reviewers give when reviewing qualitative manuscripts? A focused mapping review and synthesis. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 20, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01089-w
Stephen, D. (2022). Peer reviewers equally critique theory, method, and writing, with limited effect on the final content of accepted manuscripts. Scientometrics, 127(6), 3413–3435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04567-0
Walshe, C., Beernaert, K., Chong, P. H., Lowe, S., Martins Pereira, S., & Yardley, S. (2025). Peer review and Palliative Medicine: Guiding reviewers’ contributions to ensuring high-quality publications. Palliative Medicine. https://doi.org/10.xxxx
0 Comments