Skip to main content
v2026.11,858 entries · CC-BY 4.0
Dictionary termTrack AStablev2026.2

Pre-submission feedback contribution

Substantive intellectual input — comments, critique, suggested revisions, or methodological advice — provided by a colleague on a draft manuscript or proposal before it is submitted to a journal or funder, recognised in acknowledgements rather than as authorship.

ByCASRAI Editorial Board
· Last updated 22 Aug 2026
Share this

Ask CASRAI · free to try

Ask about Pre-submission feedback contribution

Ask your first 2 questions free below. Subscribers get 150 a day for $29 a month.

Ask CASRAI answers research-administration questions and cites the passages behind every claim. When our sources don't cover a question, it says so.

Answers draw on CASRAI's guides and dictionary plus the federal and funder documents we index: Federal Register, Grants.gov, Regulations.gov and UKRI.

Works on this site and inside Claude, Cursor and the AI tools you already use.

Everything CASRAI publishes — this page, the dictionary, the guides and the news — stays free to read, with no account and no card.

Examples

Worked examples

  • Is an instance

    A senior colleague who read three drafts and proposed restructuring the discussion, acknowledged by name with consent

Counter-examples

Looks similar, but isn't

  • Not an instance

    A casual 'looks good' email response is not pre-submission feedback in the creditable sense

Editorial commentary

Pre-submission feedback contribution is substantive intellectual input — comments, critique, suggested restructuring, or methodological advice — that a colleague gives on a draft manuscript or proposal before it is formally submitted to a journal or funder. It sits outside the formal peer-review system entirely: the feedback is informal, requested directly by the author, and typically unpublished.

How it differs from related terms: Unlike peer review, which a journal or funder commissions as part of a formal evaluation process, pre-submission feedback is solicited by the author from a trusted colleague, with no institutional evaluative role attached. It also differs from mentorship contribution, which is an ongoing relationship rather than commentary on a single draft, though the same person can obviously provide both.

Feedback that materially changed the work’s design or conclusions is typically recognised through a named, consented acknowledgement — “we thank X for comments on an earlier draft” — while feedback that rises to substantive intellectual contribution to the work’s actual claims may instead warrant authorship under ICMJE’s four criteria.

References

  • ICMJE Recommendations (2024)
  • COPE Authorship Discussion Document (2019)

Also known as

Draft feedback · Pre-submission review

Machine-readable encodings

Use in your systems

JATS XML <role> element
xml
<role vocab="credit"
      vocab-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/"
      vocab-term="Pre-submission feedback contribution"
      vocab-term-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/pre-submission-feedback-contribution" />
Schema.org DefinedTerm (JSON-LD)
json
{
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "DefinedTerm",
  "@id": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/pre-submission-feedback-contribution",
  "name": "Pre-submission feedback contribution",
  "identifier": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/pre-submission-feedback-contribution",
  "description": "Substantive intellectual input — comments, critique, suggested revisions, or methodological advice — provided by a colleague on a draft manuscript or proposal before it is submitted to a journal or funder, recognised in acknowledgements rather than as authorship.",
  "inDefinedTermSet": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/domain/credit-extensions#set",
  "url": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/pre-submission-feedback-contribution",
  "alternateName": [
    "Draft feedback",
    "Pre-submission review"
  ],
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
  "publisher": {
    "@id": "https://casrai.org/#organization"
  },
  "author": {
    "@id": "https://casrai.org/#editorial-team"
  },
  "datePublished": "2026-05-21T01:58:22",
  "dateModified": "2026-08-22T15:04:46",
  "inLanguage": "en-GB",
  "isAccessibleForFree": true
}

Referenced across the research world

University of Cambridge logoColumbia University logoCrossref logoUniversity of Edinburgh logoHarvard University logoUniversity of Oxford logoPrinceton University logoStanford School of Medicine logoUniversity College London logoORCID logoUniversity of Cambridge logoColumbia University logoCrossref logoUniversity of Edinburgh logoHarvard University logoUniversity of Oxford logoPrinceton University logoStanford School of Medicine logoUniversity College London logoORCID logo
  • University of Cambridge logo
  • Columbia University logo
  • Crossref logo
  • University of Edinburgh logo
  • Harvard University logo
  • University of Oxford logo
  • Princeton University logo
  • Stanford School of Medicine logo
  • University College London logo
  • ORCID logo

View CASRAI adoption →

Regulatory Radar

Ask this page a question. Get answers citing the rule.

Ask about your own case — the exception, the edge case, the two rules that conflict. 2 questions free, no account. $29/month after, cancel anytime.

  • Answers draw on CASRAI's guides and dictionary plus the federal and funder documents we index: Federal Register, Grants.gov, Regulations.gov and UKRI.
  • Every answer numbers its sources and links each one, so you can check the source yourself.