Developmental Editing vs. Peer Review: What’s the Difference for Academic Authors?

A few weeks ago, I spoke with an academic who had never heard of developmental editing and didn’t understand it. Isn’t that cheating, they said? And doesn’t peer review provide all the feedback an academic author needs?

The confusion came from not knowing how academic publishing workflows actually operate—and I’ve been there myself. When I wrote my first academic monograph, I didn’t know what developmental editing was at all. And I didn't know that I could source help from outside of, as well as within, the academy, either.

Similarities exist. Both developmental editing and peer review involve expert feedback on a manuscript. Also, many (but not all) peer reviewers also have some developmental editing skills. Nevertheless, developmental editing serves a very different purpose. Understanding the difference between peer review and developmental editing can help authors decide what kind of support they need at different stages.

In this blog post, I’ll tackle the above concerns and set out how developmental editing differs from peer review. If you’re unsure who hires a developmental editor and when, you can check out this related blog post.

What Is Peer Review Designed to Do?

Peer review involves expert evaluation of manuscripts by academics who know the academic field intimately. They assess the originality and rigor of the work, and the process is often but not always anonymous.

The guiding question is “Is this text publishable?” which could be restated as “Does it make an original and rigorous contribution to the field?”

Peer reviewers often comment on arguments present and how they are conveyed, but the focus is partly on gatekeeping.

What Is Developmental Editing Designed to Do?

Developmental editing complements peer review. Developmental editors work either in-house (at a press) or freelance, and they are focused on improving the editorial qualities of a text: structure, arguments, voice, style, clarity, readability, etc.

Rather than critique a contribution, they “think with” a text collaboratively. They are hired solely to improve the editorial qualities of a text so that it lands better with readers.

No gatekeeping is involved, and they work with the text as it is, rather than proposing the author read and engage with other literatures and traditions (which would require the developmental editor to have a nuanced knowledge of the academic field).

In summary, this means that developmental editors focus on the big-picture, editorial aspects of a text that enable it to land better with readers.

Where Peer Review Feedback Can Fall Short

Any experienced academic knows that peer review feedback sometimes has limitations. Reviewers may push an author to rewrite the manuscript in their own image, or rather, in line with their own theoretical approach.

Occasionally, peer review feedback is unhelpful and cruel, simply stating that the text shouldn’t be published while not offering feedback on how to make it publishable.

At the other end of the scale, peer review feedback sometimes sings the praises of a manuscript, yet does not offer tips on how to improve it further.

Peer review is also complicated by its position with the academic system. It’s unpaid, and while a certain number of peer review credits helps to build an academic CV, the quality of feedback provided is not recorded on an academic CV, and many experienced reviewers cut back on the amount of peer review they do once they have a permanent position.

Peer review is not designed to provide step-by-step structural help with how to improve a manuscript; it’s grounded in a tradition of critique, evaluation, and gatekeeping.

Where Developmental Editing Is Especially Helpful

Developmental editing for researchers is particularly helpful for several kinds of projects:

• Thesis-to-book revisions

• Books where the author is trying to reach a wider audience beyond their discipline or beyond the academy (e.g., writing a crossover book or commercial nonfiction)

• Books or journal articles where the author feels stuck or for which they have received conflicting feedback

• Projects where the arguments feel buried or unclear

  
  

In all these cases, a developmental editor can offer big-picture intuitive feedback, an emphasis on the reader experience, and knowledge of publishing conventions outside of the academy.

Developmental editors are less helpful for projects where the desired audience is very small and focused on a subdiscipline (sometimes the case with journal articles), and projects where the author is clear on the arguments, structure, concepts, and just needs help with editorial fine-tuning (e.g., copyediting).

How Peer Review and Developmental Editing Can Work Together

Peer review and developmental editing are complementary, and a developmental editor can support an academic author at various stages.

For authors particularly struggling or fearful of a desk rejection, they can be brought in before submission and before the peer review process.

Alternatively, developmental editing can be completed alongside peer review, offering extra input that “triangulates” developmental comments peer reviewers may pull up. On many occasions, academic authors have thanked me for the depth of feedback offered in my review, especially given that peer reviewers are often unpaid or offered a small payment or book voucher.

Finally, some scholars bring in a developmental editor after peer review when they have major or moderate revisions to complete. It’s common (but not essential) to let the press know you are waiting on developmental editor feedback. For instance, when I worked with authors publishing with a certain US university press, the press knew about and commented positively on my input to the project.

The idea that developmental editing might be “cheating” emerges, I think, from the mistaken application of PhD principles to book and journal article publishing (hiring a developmental editor would almost always be “cheating” on a PhD, and for this reason, the vast majority of developmental editors, myself included, do not work with PhD students). It also links to an individualistic myth that a project is the sole (genius) effort of an exceptional academic individual. They say “it takes a village to raise a child,” and I believe this firmly applies to academic knowledge production too.

Conclusion: Developmental Editing vs. Peer Review

In summary, peer review is part of academic evaluation. Developmental editing offers a separate, nonevaluative space focused entirely on helping you develop your work.

If you’re unsure whether your project needs structural revision, proposal development, or deeper argument work, developmental editing can help clarify the next stage. You can read more about the services I offer here.