Will the journal provide detailed feedback on the content of the article?

Journal feedback on article content varies by publication. While comprehensive critique is uncommon, most provide basic editorial decisions with brief rationale. Peer review primarily focuses on assessing suitability for publication rather than developmental guidance. Editors typically summarize reviewer comments addressing major flaws or strengths but avoid line-by-line analysis. The depth often depends on journal policies, reviewer engagement, and manuscript stage (e.g., revise-and-resubmit decisions may include more feedback). Note that outright rejections frequently lack detailed explanations. Some specialized humanities journals offer more substantive critique than high-volume STEM publications. Authors should consult each journal's stated review practices. To obtain substantive feedback, authors should proactively seek presubmission inquiries or utilize institutional mentorship programs. Selecting journals known for constructive review processes enhances chances of receiving meaningful input. Where journals provide limited critique, leveraging academic networks or professional editing services becomes essential to refine manuscripts before resubmission elsewhere.