Responding to feedback
Depending on the nature of the response/feedback you receive, you may feel like turning in excitement to the keyboard, or in sorrow to the bottle. (Or, I suppose, in excitement to the bottle and then to the keyboard, though this may delay your revisions.) Regardless of the ultimate fate of your submission, you can almost always learn something valuable from the process.
-
To help ensure this, when it comes to external reviewers, don't suggest your former professors, friends, or current colleagues. Not only will this look unseemly, it will put them in the awkward position of potentially having to compromise either their friendship or their professional reputation. Most importantly, it's not likely to result in the sort of feedback necessary to make your article as solid as possible. There's no reason to avoid suggesting the acknowledged experts in your field, as it's their advice that will likely be most helpful as you seek to establish your place in the scholarship.
-
That being said, "revise and resubmit" is not a mandate, but a list of recommendations, and you aren't under any obligation to accept every suggestion. When you resubmit your revised manuscript, accompany it with a detailed narrative explaining to the editor how you responded to the reviewer's comments. Note how you incorporated those you found useful, and articulate (carefully and respectfully) your reasons for rejecting those you found unworkable. (Realistically, the former should outnumber the latter if you want to get it published in that journal.) Ultimately, it's your research and your project, and you shouldn't compromise anything essential simply to get a publication credit. For young scholars, in particular, it's important your first forays into peer-reviewed publication are accurate reflections of your abilities and your scholarship.
-
While the feedback you receive will generally be insightful and fair, you may sometimes encounter criticism that feels personal, or is objectively in(s)ane. Try to find what positives you can take from it, (secretly) wish the reviewer an itchy rash, then move on (punishment suggested by Heather Nathans). Be sure to first reflect unemotionally on feedback that makes you defensive, however, as your negative reaction doesn't necessarily mean the advice was misguided, and you may well find holes in your project (or at least areas others will be likely to perceive as holes, which will allow you to head off such criticisms in advance). Above all, appreciate the opportunity you've been given: it's rare that a senior scholar will take the time to consider your work and offer detailed advice on how to improve your argument and your writing.
-
Similarly, if you're fortunate enough to have your piece accepted, welcome the chance to have the copy editor tear your work a new one. S/he will no doubt find trivial errors you may have missed, which will help improve your editing eye. More importantly, the corrections can help point out areas in your work where what you thought was clarity was, to an experienced editor, unnecessarily confusing or ambiguous. As with the feedback from external reviewers, it will be a rare opportunity to improve your writing with the help of a professional, and you should make the most of it.