What are the strategies for getting feedback on articles?

When I have a manuscript nearly ready to submit, I send it (by e-mail) to colleagues who I think would be interested in it. I politely ask them to read it and send me any comments they have. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't; it's understood that there is not an obligation. Of course, some of them send me their manuscripts too, and they're more likely to read mine if I have read and commented on theirs.

The colleagues I send the paper to (usually about 2-4 in number) may include:

• Senior people who have mentored me
• Past coauthors and collaborators
• People I don't know but whose work is essential to that in my manuscript

People in the first two categories are usually willing to assist based on our existing relationship; those in the last category are generally pleased to see their work being cited and built on.

I don't usually need very specific feedback at this point in the process. If I was concerned, say, about the correctness of some part of the work, I would have worried about that long before I wrote the article. Occasionally I may have a specific question about, e.g., suitability of the manuscript for a particular journal. In that case, I would send the article to one of the editors of the journal or to a colleague who often publishes in that journal, and ask specifically.

Any colleagues who provide substantial feedback will be acknowledged at the end of the paper. Providing this kind of feedback certainly wouldn't qualify one for co-authorship.

Apart from the excellent answer by David, I guess that any (experienced) academic knows that this job has a long memory and it's a non-zero-sum game, so the more you give to others the better you are perceived. So my answer would include also a pro-active behaviour in reviewing papers for others too. This way you'll learn more about writing styles, will be perceived as a contributor to someone else's research, and will be more likely to receive feedback from others