14.2 Peer Review Process
5 min read•july 30, 2024
Peer is a game-changer in writing. It's like having a friend look over your work before you turn it in. You get fresh eyes on your writing, catch mistakes, and make your ideas clearer. It's a key step in polishing your work.
Getting feedback can be scary, but it's super helpful. You learn to give and take , which is a valuable skill. Plus, you build a supportive writing community. It's all about working together to make your writing shine.
Peer Review Process Benefits
Purpose and Outcomes
Top images from around the web for Purpose and Outcomes
3. Selecting Your Sources - Assignment | Your Own Modest Proposal (Douglas) - Research Guides at ... View original
Is this image relevant?
Lupine Publishers | Peer Review Process | Academic Publisher View original
Is this image relevant?
Peer Review Process – Material Science Research India View original
Is this image relevant?
3. Selecting Your Sources - Assignment | Your Own Modest Proposal (Douglas) - Research Guides at ... View original
Is this image relevant?
Lupine Publishers | Peer Review Process | Academic Publisher View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Top images from around the web for Purpose and Outcomes
3. Selecting Your Sources - Assignment | Your Own Modest Proposal (Douglas) - Research Guides at ... View original
Is this image relevant?
Lupine Publishers | Peer Review Process | Academic Publisher View original
Is this image relevant?
Peer Review Process – Material Science Research India View original
Is this image relevant?
3. Selecting Your Sources - Assignment | Your Own Modest Proposal (Douglas) - Research Guides at ... View original
Is this image relevant?
Lupine Publishers | Peer Review Process | Academic Publisher View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
- Peer review involves having others read and provide feedback on a piece of writing before it is finalized or submitted to get an outside perspective and suggestions for improvement
- Ensures the writing is high quality, well-organized, and engaging for the intended audience by catching errors or unclear passages the writer may have missed
- Provides the writer feedback on the effectiveness of their writing in meeting its purpose and gives them the opportunity to consider alternative viewpoints or approaches
- Serves as a key step in the writing process for both academic and professional settings to polish the final product
Collaborative Benefits
- Allows the writer to receive input from multiple perspectives beyond their own to identify areas for they may not have otherwise noticed
- Builds a supportive writing community where individuals can learn from giving and receiving feedback to grow their skills
- Normalizes revision as a necessary stage of writing and helps writers become more comfortable with constructive criticism
- Prepares writers for future collaborative projects by practicing giving and receiving feedback in a low-stakes environment (classroom peer review)
Constructive Feedback in Writing
Feedback Principles
- Constructive feedback is specific, actionable, and improvement-focused to provide concrete suggestions and avoid simply pointing out faults
- Prioritizes feedback on higher-order concerns like content and organization first, then later drafts can refine lower-order concerns like word choice and grammar
- Recognizes that not all feedback must be incorporated, but all should be considered by the writer and evaluated for alignment with their writing goals
- Maintains a respectful tone that focuses on the writing itself and not judgements of the writer to create a collaborative revision environment
Content and Organization Feedback
- When reviewing content, consider if the main ideas are clearly conveyed, well-supported with evidence and examples, and relevant to the overall purpose, noting any gaps in logic or areas needing more explanation
- For organization, evaluate if the structure effectively guides the reader through the key points, with an introduction previewing main ideas, body paragraphs each focusing on one idea with clear transitions, and a conclusion summarizing key takeaways
- Offers suggestions for how to improve the logical flow and coherence of the writing (adding topic sentences, rearranging paragraph order, strengthening transitions)
- Points out areas that are confusing or underdeveloped and need further explanation or support (vague main points, missing examples, lack of analysis)
Style and Mechanics Feedback
- In terms of style, consider if the language and tone are appropriate for the intended audience and purpose, looking for variety in sentence structures, precise word choice, and proper grammar and mechanics
- Identifies patterns of error in grammar, punctuation, and spelling for the writer to address in revision while avoiding an overwhelming list of isolated corrections
- Provides suggestions for elevating word choice by replacing overused phrases, imprecise language, or inappropriate jargon (slang in a formal research paper)
- Notes any inconsistencies in formatting and style, such as shifting between MLA and APA citation formats or using different fonts
Incorporating Peer Feedback
Evaluating Feedback
- The writer should carefully review all feedback received and evaluate what resonates as helpful for strengthening the content, organization, and style of the piece versus what does not align with their writing goals
- Prioritizes high-level feedback on aspects like clarifying main ideas, improving paragraph organization, and tailoring language to the audience over minor stylistic suggestions
- Recognizes that not all feedback must be incorporated and the writer must still maintain their own voice and writing style by considering the feedback but making intentional choices
- Categorizes feedback by level of importance and relevance to their writing purpose to create a revision plan (crucial structural changes versus optional word choice tweaks)
Revision Strategies
- Views incorporating feedback as an opportunity to practice revision skills and produce a more polished, effective piece of writing as part of a recursive process
- Starts with higher-order revisions to content and structure based on peer feedback before moving on to sentence-level edits and proofreading
- Approaches revisions holistically by looking at how changes to one aspect of the writing (adding a body paragraph) impact the rest of the piece (now needing a stronger transition and topic sentence)
- Avoids simply making every change suggested to maintain authenticity to the original purpose for writing, instead using feedback as a tool for re-envisioning their work
Respectful Peer Dialogue
Receiving Feedback
- Writers should be open to feedback and avoid becoming defensive by remembering the feedback is about the writing itself and not a judgement of them as a person
- Asks clarifying questions about feedback if needed to fully understand the reviewer's perspective and how it could be incorporated (examples of places to trim wordy sentences)
- Thanks reviewers for their time and insights to acknowledge the collaborative effort of improving the writing and maintain a positive relationship
- Recognizes critical feedback as an opportunity for growth and improvement rather than a personal attack to minimize self-consciousness and focus on the writing
Giving Feedback
- Reviewers should establish a collaborative environment where all parties are working to improve the writing by focusing feedback on the piece itself and not making judgements about the writer
- Uses "I" statements to share personal reactions as a reader and provide specific examples of what is working well and what could be improved (I found this conclusion compelling because...)
- When giving critical feedback, sandwich it between positive comments to offer encouragement and avoid overwhelming the writer (This metaphor is really creative! I was a little confused in the next paragraph about... Overall this piece shows a lot of improvement in...)
- Maintains a sensitive and respectful tone to build trust with the writer and create a productive dialogue about the writing (avoid attacking language like "this is terrible")
Key Terms to Review (19)
Acceptance: Acceptance refers to the acknowledgment and approval of a work or idea, particularly within the context of critical evaluation and peer review. In this process, acceptance signifies that a piece of work meets established standards and criteria, leading to its publication or further development. It plays a vital role in maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly communication by ensuring that only well-evaluated work is disseminated.
Author: An author is an individual who creates and originates a piece of written work, including articles, books, research papers, and other forms of literature. The author's perspective, expertise, and intent shape the content and style of the work, making them a crucial figure in the communication of ideas and information.
Conflict of Interest: A conflict of interest occurs when an individual's personal interests, relationships, or loyalties have the potential to compromise their judgment, decision-making, or actions in a professional context. This can undermine trust and integrity, particularly when it comes to evaluations and recommendations, as it may lead to biased outcomes.
Constructive criticism: Constructive criticism is feedback aimed at helping someone improve their work or skills, delivered in a thoughtful and supportive manner. It focuses on specific aspects of performance and offers suggestions for improvement rather than just pointing out flaws. This approach fosters growth and development, making it an essential part of the writing process, self-revision, and peer reviews.
Double-blind review: Double-blind review is a peer review process where both the authors and the reviewers remain anonymous to each other. This approach helps to eliminate bias, as reviewers cannot be influenced by the identity of the authors, and vice versa, allowing for a more impartial evaluation of the work submitted for publication.
Editor: An editor is a professional responsible for reviewing, revising, and preparing written content for publication. This role involves evaluating the quality of a piece of writing, ensuring clarity, coherence, and overall effectiveness while also considering the intended audience and purpose. Editors often work closely with writers to enhance their work, guiding them through the revision process to produce polished final drafts.
Objectivity: Objectivity refers to the practice of making decisions and judgments based on observable phenomena and evidence rather than personal feelings, interpretations, or opinions. It emphasizes impartiality and neutrality, striving to eliminate bias and ensure fairness in analysis and evaluation. This principle is crucial in various contexts, as it fosters trustworthiness and credibility in information, writing, and assessments.
Peer reviewer: A peer reviewer is an individual who evaluates and provides feedback on a colleague's work, often in academic or professional settings, to ensure the quality and credibility of the research. This process is crucial as it helps maintain academic integrity, improves the quality of the work, and ensures that published studies meet the necessary standards before they are shared with a broader audience.
Recommendations: Recommendations are suggestions or proposals put forward for consideration, often aimed at improving a piece of work or guiding future actions. They play a crucial role in the peer review process, providing constructive feedback that helps authors enhance their research and writing quality.
Rejection: Rejection refers to the process of dismissing or not accepting a submitted work, often occurring during the evaluation phases of writing and research. It serves as a critical component of the feedback loop, pushing authors to refine their ideas and improve their work based on the critiques they receive.
Review: A review is a critical evaluation of a piece of work, such as a research paper or manuscript, that aims to assess its quality, validity, and relevance. This process typically involves feedback from peers who have expertise in the subject matter, helping to ensure that the work meets academic standards and contributes meaningfully to the field.
Review databases: Review databases are collections of scholarly articles, research papers, and reviews that have undergone a peer review process, ensuring their credibility and reliability. They serve as essential resources for researchers, students, and academics to access high-quality information and assess the validity of various studies within specific fields.
Revise and resubmit: Revise and resubmit refers to a common practice in the peer review process where a submitted work, such as an article or paper, is not accepted in its current form but is invited for revision based on feedback. This process encourages writers to improve their work by addressing the comments and suggestions made by reviewers, ultimately aiming for a stronger final submission. It highlights the collaborative nature of academic writing, emphasizing that feedback can lead to significant enhancements in quality and clarity.
Revision: Revision is the process of reviewing, modifying, and improving a written work to enhance its clarity, coherence, and overall effectiveness. It involves rethinking the content, structure, and language of the piece, often incorporating feedback from others to ensure that the message is communicated clearly and effectively.
Single-blind review: Single-blind review is a peer review process where the reviewers know the identity of the authors, but the authors do not know the identities of the reviewers. This method helps to mitigate bias by allowing reviewers to provide honest feedback without fear of retaliation from the authors, while maintaining some accountability for the reviewers' evaluations. It's commonly used in academic publishing to ensure a fair assessment of submitted work.
Submission: Submission refers to the act of presenting a piece of work for evaluation or feedback, often in a formal or academic context. This process is crucial as it allows for constructive criticism and validation of ideas, helping to improve the quality of the work before it is published or finalized. Submission not only demonstrates readiness but also opens up a dialogue for improvement and refinement through peer assessment.
Submission Systems: Submission systems are digital platforms used to manage the process of submitting and reviewing academic works, such as articles, research papers, and other scholarly materials. These systems streamline the workflow for authors, reviewers, and editors by facilitating the submission process, tracking revisions, and providing a centralized location for communication. They play a crucial role in ensuring that peer review is organized and efficient, ultimately impacting the quality and integrity of published research.
Thoroughness: Thoroughness refers to the quality of being comprehensive, detailed, and meticulous in approach or execution. In the context of the peer review process, it emphasizes the importance of scrutinizing a work from all angles to ensure accuracy, reliability, and validity before it is published or accepted.
Transparency: Transparency refers to the openness and clarity with which information is shared, particularly in processes that involve evaluation or decision-making. It is essential for fostering trust and accountability, especially in academic and research settings where peer review plays a crucial role in ensuring the integrity of the work being assessed.