As a researcher and author, how do you feel and what do you do when the editor requests revisions on a manuscript you submitted for publication? Recently my coauthors and I received reviews and editorial feedback with a number of constructive recommendations. We outlined the reviewers' comments and revised the manuscript, carefully addressing each point. This unremarkable reaction to requests for revisions is a normal activity for authors. Whether the manuscript is accepted or not, the reviewers' comments and editorial remarks are carefully and thoughtfully considered. Critique is taken in a spirit of collegiality to improve the final product. In short, we tend to accept and use the feedback we get.

Now, consider how we feel and respond when we have a grant application that receives a poor score or is not scored. I thought about this recently when a colleague-a well-funded researcher and grant reviewer-received notification of an "unscored" application signifying that the grant ranked in the lower half. The reaction was anger directed at study section reviewers. I have seen similar reactions in other researchers, both novice and seasoned. To my colleague the reviewers were, at best, not competent to review the proposal; at worst, they were short-sighted, blind, ignorant, and feeble. Hardly the stuff of respectful collegial exchange.

Anger and disappointment in receiving an unscored application are understandable. Countless hours of hard work and effort are expended in the submission process. Unfortunately, when anger and resentment creep into a revised application, reviewers may interpret such content as unresponsive to the reviews, adversarial, and, in many cases, arrogant. Rarely does anger directed toward the reviewers contribute to a better score.

Study section members evaluate and critique an application on the basis of (a) scientific rigor, (b) significance, (c) innovation, (d) design and methods, and (e) adequacy of the research team and research environment. They determine the relative strengths and weaknesses of applications in considering a score. They do not make funding decisions. They do, however, contribute countless hours in grant reviews, hours they could have spent writing a manuscript or preparing their own grant application. And, while some reviewers may have weak eyesight (perhaps from reading applications containing less than 11-point font size), none, to my knowledge, are short-sighted or blind.

Does the researcher's attitude toward a critique make a difference? Perhaps, the next time you receive a not-so-favorable score and revise an application, consider your grant reviewers as 2 or 3 real-life colleagues sitting before you. Think of them as having your best interest at heart, guiding you to strengthen your application, and contributing to your scholarly development. Place anger outside of the revision. Alternatively, think about the last time that you revised and resubmitted a manuscript, carefully incorporating the sage and wise comments of reviewers. Recall the satisfaction of receiving favorable reviews that culminated in a publication.

Karen Hassey Dow, PhD, RN, FAAN

Associate Editor