Background/context. Academic writing and publication are complex and often based on unspoken knowledge (Chakraborty et al., 2021; Pretorius & Macaulay, 2021). Academic writing is also considered a form of identity work, and critique can affect students’ academic identities (Chakraborty et al., 2021; Hradsky et al., 2022). Writing groups offer supportive environments for students to develop their academic identities through peer feedback (Chakraborty et al., 2021; Hradsky et al., 2022).
Description. This study showcases findings from a paper examining the learning that occurred through a collaborative peer feedback process designed to help students learn about academic book publishing. We investigate what students learned as part of the project, both in terms of feedback on their writing and the feedback they provided to others. We also examine our experiences as co-editors and feedback providers.
Method. Reflexive thematic analysis of 29 PhD students’ qualitative survey responses and email-based conversations, and editors’ reflective narratives. Findings represented as stories blending students’ and editors’ experiences.
Evidence. Students discovered they were part of a wider scholarly community where everyone had their own stories and problems. Students felt that feedback on their writing helped them build confidence in their skills, but they learned most from reading others’ work and providing feedback. Importantly, students found that experiential learning in this environment made hidden practices visible. These findings align with our experiences as co-editors, showcasing how learners and teachers are co-creators of meaning within each others’ stories.
Contribution. Our findings demonstrate that collaborative peer feedback within a safe space such as a writing group can foster learning-focused feedback where students are active and reflexive agents in the feedback process.
Engagement. Conversation prompts: “How do your emotions influence academic writing and reactions to feedback?” and “Are there hidden practices of publishing that should be discussed more openly?”.