Working with Contributors

Editor

Your relationship with contributors directly affects the quality and volume of content on the platform. Thoughtful, respectful feedback encourages contributors to improve their work and continue producing material.

Providing Constructive Feedback

When sending an article back for revisions, your feedback should be:

Specific — Reference exact sections, paragraphs, or sentences rather than making general statements.
Actionable — Tell the contributor what to do, not just what is wrong. "Add a brief explanation of HRV before discussing its applications" is better than "the HRV section is unclear."
Prioritized — If there are multiple issues, distinguish between must-fix items and nice-to-have improvements.
Respectful — Remember that contributors have invested time in their work. Frame feedback as collaborative improvement, not criticism.

The feedback sandwich is not necessary

You do not need to artificially wrap criticism in praise. Contributors prefer direct, honest, and kind feedback over formulaic structures. Lead with the most important point.

Writing Effective Review Notes

Start with a one-sentence summary of your overall assessment: "Good coverage of the topic, but a few sections need additional detail."

List specific items that need attention, organized by priority. Reference section headings or paragraph positions so the contributor can find them quickly.

If you made any direct edits (formatting fixes, typo corrections), mention them briefly so the contributor is aware.

End with clear next steps: "Please address items 1-3 and resubmit for review."

Article edit view showing the notes field with structured editorial feedback for a contributor

Building Contributor Quality

Over time, your consistent feedback helps contributors internalize the platform's standards:

Be consistent — Apply the same standards to every contributor. Inconsistency breeds confusion and frustration.
Explain the "why" — When you request a change, briefly explain the reasoning. This teaches contributors to self-edit in future submissions.
Acknowledge improvement — When a contributor's submissions improve over time, let them know. Recognition reinforces good habits.

If a contributor consistently struggles with the same issues, consider pointing them to relevant sections of the platform guide or offering a brief conversation to align on expectations.

Occasionally a contributor may push back on your feedback. When this happens:

Listen to their reasoning — they may have domain expertise you lack.
Focus on the reader's experience, not personal preference.
If you cannot reach agreement, escalate to a senior editor or the content lead for a final decision.

Rewriting the contributor's work — Your role is to guide, not to ghostwrite. If an article needs a complete rewrite, have a conversation with the contributor first.
Holding reviews too long — Delayed feedback stalls the pipeline and demotivates contributors.
Inconsistent standards — Approving weak content from one contributor while rejecting similar quality from another damages trust.