Something a lot of scientists seem not to (want to) realise is that we are writing papers to communicate with one or more sub-communities and if reviewers from those sub-communities disagree strongly with the way things are being phrased we have lost our key audience already. 1/5

If (some of) the people who we think should be reading our findings, ideas, conclusions, have no interest, or are uneasy, unhappy, or even opposed to the way we describe our findings and we pretend/assume that's not an issue, it honestly will only affect us negatively. 2/5

This is not to say that we have to sacrifice everything we hold dear in terms of how we speak about our own work, but if we can't communicate with the important related (sub)field(s) that's clearly something will not be "good" for us and our work. 3/5

This will be reflected in ways that matter to our careers too: fewer citations, for example.

My point is, we need to learn to understand what feedback is. Even a reviewer getting angry/upset (which should not be done aggressively ever in an ideal world) is totally a signal. 4/5

This is all just as true for insular subfields that think cos they have their "rockstars" that they're healthy on a broader scientific level. On the contrary, stagnancy shows. There're no guarantees that history will not treat them like the equivalent of a scientific cult. 5/5