Peer Review Example: How the EMPATHY Framework Transforms Feedback with AI

Peer review has always been one of the most powerful yet stressful parts of academic life. A thoughtful review can strengthen a paper and inspire its author, while a harsh one can discourage and even derail a career. For years, reviews have often been framed as gatekeeping rather than stewardship. That’s the mindset that Professor Hari Sridhar, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Marketing, wanted to change when he created the EMPATHY framework, a set of principles designed to make reviewing more constructive, respectful, and genuinely useful.

When his editorial outlining this framework was published, it sparked a wave of responses from editors, scholars, and PhD students across disciplines who recognized its value. But there was still one question left: how could this framework move beyond theory and actually guide reviewers in practice? That question led to a collaboration with AnswerThis.io and the creation of the Empathy Tool.

Watch this video from 7:04 to get an overview of the EMPATHY tool:

The Journey from Framework to Tool

The EMPATHY framework captures seven principles that guide better reviewing: keeping the end goal in mind, approaching feedback with a developmental mindset, reading thoroughly, allocating critique wisely, maintaining professional tone, balancing strengths with weaknesses, and writing reviews that serve as a roadmap rather than a roadblock.

When Sridhar and Pallav Routh, a professor at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, began exploring the idea of an AI tool based on these principles, they knew it shouldn’t replace human judgment. Instead, it needed to act as a quiet coach, encouraging reviewers to refine their tone, broaden their coverage, and structure their feedback in a way that reflects EMPATHY’s values.

That vision became reality when they partnered with AnswerThis. Together they built the Empathy Tool, an assistant that helps reviewers strengthen what they’ve already written, while preserving their own voice and perspective.

Peer Review Example With AI: The 7 Stages of EMPATHY

The Empathy Tool doesn’t just correct phrasing, it walks reviewers through the seven stages of EMPATHY, turning ordinary drafts into constructive, balanced feedback. Here’s how each stage works in practice:

Start With a Clear End Goal
Effective peer reviews begin by defining the desired outcome. Before you write feedback, identify the main objective: Is it to improve clarity, strengthen arguments, or highlight originality? The tool prompts you to clarify your goals, ensuring your review remains focused on meaningful improvements that truly matter.

Adopt a Developmental Mindset
Peer review is a collaborative process aimed at helping ideas evolve, not just filtering submissions. Use the tool’s guidance to frame your comments for growth. For example, instead of saying “This contribution isn’t novel,” try “The core idea overlaps with prior work in X and Y. Clarifying how this differs could strengthen the novelty case.” This approach encourages constructive dialogue and actionable feedback.

Read the Manuscript Thoroughly
To provide valuable feedback, read the entire paper carefully. The tool encourages you to slow down and engage deeply, ensuring you don’t miss key arguments or insights. Avoid forming judgments based on a quick skim, comprehensive understanding leads to more insightful critiques.

Prioritize Key Issues
Not all feedback is equally important. Use the Empathy Tool to distinguish between major conceptual concerns and minor editing suggestions. Focus your comments on issues that significantly impact the paper’s quality, helping authors address the most critical points first.

Maintain a Professional and Constructive Tone
The tone of your feedback can motivate or discourage authors. Choose language that is respectful and solution-oriented. For instance, replace “The theory section is weak and poorly thought out” with “The theory section would benefit from deeper conceptual development, particularly in linking constructs A and B.” Constructive feedback fosters improvement and collaboration.

Provide Balanced and Holistic Feedback
Highlight both strengths and areas for improvement. The tool reminds you to recognize what works well alongside what needs revision, ensuring your review is fair and encouraging. Balanced feedback builds trust and supports author development.

Structure Your Review as a Step-by-Step Roadmap
Organize your comments logically, creating a clear path the author can follow. Instead of scattered notes, group feedback into actionable steps. The tool helps you structure your review, making it easier for authors to implement changes and enhance their work effectively.

Effective Before and After Feedback Examples for Academic Writing

Explore how to transform vague feedback into actionable, professional guidance that supports clearer research communication:

Unhelpful: This section is confusing.
Constructive: The explanation of your methodology in Section 2 could be clearer. Consider breaking it into smaller steps and defining key terms for greater clarity.

Unhelpful: Your contribution is weak.
Constructive: The contribution could be strengthened by clarifying how it extends prior studies in X and Y, which will help readers understand its significance.

Using these examples can improve your feedback process, making it more actionable and supportive for academic and professional growth.

The Positive Impact of Constructive Feedback

When reviewers adopt this approach, the impact extends beyond individual papers. Constructive and professional feedback increases author confidence, improves manuscript quality, and fosters a more positive and collaborative scholarly culture. In short, better reviews build better research communities.

Reviewer Checklist: Keeping Feedback Constructive and Professional

Delivering effective feedback is essential for driving continuous improvement and building a positive, collaborative environment. To ensure your reviews are constructive and well-received, focus on actionable solutions rather than simply pointing out issues. Always use respectful, professional language to foster trust and open dialogue. Balance your critiques by acknowledging what works well, making your feedback both motivating and comprehensive. Stay aligned with the overall objective of the project, and organize your comments to create a clear, step by step roadmap for improvement. By following these best practices, reviewers can help colleagues grow while maintaining a productive and professional atmosphere.

Looking Forward

Peer review will always depend on the judgment and expertise of human scholars. But that doesn’t mean the process can’t be supported and improved. With the EMPATHY framework as its foundation and AnswerThis as its home, the Empathy Tool offers a new way forward: reviews that are rigorous, balanced, and constructive. AnswerThis also allows users to build their own tools with custom tools so that they can make their own personal AI research assistant!

This is what the future of reviewing should look like. If you want to see a stronger, clearer peer review example in action, try the Empathy Tool today by signing up to AnswerThis.