While there is no lack of research on student engagement with feedback obtained from teachers, peers, or computers in higher education, scholars have conducted much less research on novice researchers' engagement with reviewers' feedback on the manuscripts submitted for publication purposes. This study examines how two PhD students engaged with reviewers' feedback on their manuscripts affectively, behaviourally, and cognitively. The findings show that the two PhD students' engagement across affect, behaviour and cognition was interconnected in a complex and dynamic manner. The findings also show that while novice researchers' affective engagement with reviewer feedback was mainly shaped by the nature of feedback, and the researcher experience, there were inconsistencies between affective and behavioural dimensions of engagement due to an implicit need to address reviewer comments under the pressure of academic publishing. These findings call for attention to how novice researchers' legitimate participation in academic writing for publication purposes can be scaffolded.