Will journal editors provide detailed feedback based on the quality of the articles?

Journal editors may provide detailed feedback, but extensive critiques are not guaranteed due to workload, journal policy, and submission quality. Typically, high-quality manuscripts receive more substantive commentary. Editors often prioritize manuscripts with strong potential, directing substantive feedback primarily when peer reviewers provide comprehensive reports. Key considerations include the journal's specific review format, the editor's assessment of the article's near-acceptability, and available reviewer expertise. Most detailed feedback originates from peer reviewers, though editors might synthesize or highlight crucial points. The level of detail also depends on the journal's prestige and resources; higher-tier journals often provide more substantial critiques. This feedback significantly benefits authors by clarifying weaknesses in methodology, argumentation, or presentation, ultimately aiding revision and resubmission elsewhere if rejected. It serves as valuable guidance for strengthening the manuscript and improving future work. Providing constructive feedback aligns with the scholarly community's goal of advancing rigorous research.