In the intricate world of academic publishing, understanding how doctoral students engage with feedback is a multifaceted challenge that extends beyond traditional notions of literacy. Recent research spearheaded by Yi Peng presents a groundbreaking ecological perspective on doctoral students’ feedback literacy, illuminating the dynamic interplay between prior experiences and immediate contexts in shaping how early-career researchers navigate the demanding peer-review process. This study not only broadens the conceptual framework of feedback literacy but also offers vital insights into how academic communities and disciplinary norms influence feedback interpretation and utilization at the doctoral level.
At the heart of this inquiry is the recognition that feedback literacy for doctoral students operates as an ecological agency—a concept that emphasizes the interconnectedness of cognitive, social, and affective factors across time and space. Unlike undergraduate students, whose engagement with written feedback typically revolves around textual and instructional elements, doctoral candidates encounter what the study terms “socio-disciplinary affordances.” These are context-specific opportunities and constraints that arise uniquely within advanced academic disciplines and communities, greatly impacting how feedback is perceived and acted upon during the manuscript revision process.
The research delves deeply into the experiences of two Chinese doctoral students, Cheryl and Fred, who exemplify distinct modalities of engaging with reviewer feedback. Both participants showed acute awareness of affordances across three dimensions: textual-rhetorical, socio-disciplinary, and interpersonal. However, it was the socio-disciplinary dimension—marked by an insider’s understanding of disciplinary norms and peer networks—that emerged as central to their feedback literacy. The study highlights Cheryl’s strategic reliance on disciplinary insiders for journal recommendations and Fred’s nuanced differentiation between disciplinary versus field-specific reviewers based on his experience, illustrating how sophisticated interpretive frameworks scaffold their ability to decode and operationalize feedback effectively.
Interpersonal dimensions of feedback engagement revealed a notable departure from the typical dialogic feedback familiar to classroom settings. Given the anonymity embedded in the peer review system, doctoral students cannot directly interact with reviewers, which necessitates an intricate process of inference and speculation. Cheryl’s resilience in responding to harsh critiques was notably informed by her previous encounters with supervisory feedback, which helped her to appreciate reviewers’ comments as aimed at scholarly growth rather than personal criticism. Meanwhile, Fred’s dual experience as both author and reviewer allowed him to hypothesize about the identities and disciplinary perspectives of his commentators, underscoring how firsthand experience mediates ecological agency in feedback engagement.
Beyond contextual factors, the study foregrounds the multi-dimensional capacities that manifest as feedback literacy. Cognitive capacity varies significantly, as evidenced by Cheryl’s need to consult online writing resources to decode complex feedback, contrasting with Fred’s higher genre mastery rooted in disciplinary expertise. This disparity underscores the critical role of disciplinary knowledge in equipping doctoral students to exercise effective cognitive engagement with feedback, aligning with established scholarship that stresses mediation of cognitive preparedness by domain-specific expertise.
Equally consequential is the socio-cognitive capacity, demonstrated through participants’ abilities to reflect on and orchestrate feedback within the broader academic ecology. Fred’s projective agency—his anticipatory, strategic modulation of resources and actions to optimally respond to feedback—exemplifies how iterative, future-oriented planning plays a transformative role in feedback literacy. This capacity is amplified through sustained engagement within academic communities, reinforcing argumentation from Dawson et al. (2021) that authentic feedback interactions serve as fertile ground for cultivating sophisticated feedback competencies in doctoral researchers.
The socio-affective dimension further enriches the ecological framework by capturing the emotional and relational complexities involved in feedback processing. Both Cheryl and Fred exhibited distinctive affective responses that modulated their engagement with peer review. Their nuanced judgments about when to heed reviewer suggestions versus when to disregard unconstructive criticism highlight the critical interplay between emotional resilience, cognitive evaluation, and perceived interpersonal dynamics. Cheryl’s gratitude toward anonymous reviewers contrasts with prior findings that novice researchers tend to resist critical commentary, pointing to the importance of relational analogies—such as parallels drawn between reviewers and supervisors—in shaping affective dispositions toward feedback.
Significantly, the study reveals how both participants leveraged their ecological awareness to reconstruct favorable environments for engagement with peer review, albeit through divergent modes of agency enactment. Cheryl’s approach, typified by cautious and resource-dependent decoding, and Fred’s proactive, experience-informed orchestration both underscore the layered complexity of doctoral feedback literacy. Their sensitivity to temporal and contextual nuances—balancing past feedback experiences with immediate manuscript demands—affords them the agility to navigate diverse feedback challenges and optimize revision outcomes.
Reinforcing feedback literacy as an emergent, dynamic phenomenon, the findings advocate for a reconceptualization of doctoral students’ engagement with reviewer feedback as a process deeply embedded in disciplinary communities and socialization practices. The iterative, projective, and practical-evaluative dimensions of feedback agency not only shape how doctoral students interpret feedback but also influence their evolving identities as scholars contributing to niche academic ecosystems.
This ecological perspective holds profound implications for how doctoral education and scholarly publishing might better support the development of feedback literacy. Recognizing the distinct affordances present in socio-disciplinary contexts calls for tailored mentorship and training that transcends generic feedback frameworks. By cultivating both cognitive expertise and socio-affective resilience, doctoral programs could empower early-career researchers to engage more productively with peer review, fostering not only improved manuscript quality but also robust scholarly identities and agency.
Ultimately, this study enriches the discourse on academic feedback by demonstrating that feedback literacy encompasses far more than textual revision or corrective responsiveness. It involves a sophisticated navigation of multi-layered sociocultural, disciplinary, and affective landscapes—an ecological choreography that doctoral students must master to thrive in the competitive realm of academic publishing. Through detailed analysis of insider experiences and strategic interactions with peer review, the research charts a new trajectory for conceptualizing feedback as a complex act of agency situated within intersecting temporal and social dimensions.
In conclusion, as academic environments evolve to demand higher scholarly competencies, assessments of feedback literacy need to embrace this complexity by accounting for the ecological nature of feedback engagement. Peng’s investigation lays a foundational framework that not only elucidates the mechanisms by which doctoral students interpret and utilize feedback but also underscores the vital role of context, experience, and emotional intelligence in fostering sustainable academic success. This paradigm shift calls on educators, mentors, and publishing professionals alike to rethink feedback systems in ways that nurture the multifaceted capacities essential for the next generation of researchers.
Subject of Research: Doctoral students’ feedback literacy in academic publishing from an ecological perspective, focusing on their cognitive, socio-cognitive, and socio-affective capacities in navigating peer review.
Article Title: Toward an understanding of doctoral students’ feedback literacy in academic publishing: an ecological perspective.
Article References:
Peng, Y. Toward an understanding of doctoral students’ feedback literacy in academic publishing: an ecological perspective. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 1819 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-06101-2
Image Credits: AI Generated
