When you peer-review another writer's work, you evaluate it, criticize it, suggest improvements, and then communicate all of that to the writer. As a first-time peer-reviewer, you might be a bit uneasy about criticizing someone else's work. For example, how do you tell somebody his essay is boring? Read the discussion and steps that follow; you'll find advice and guidelines on doing peer reviews and communicating peer-review comments.
The Initial Meeting
At the beginning of a peer review, the writer should provide peer reviewers with notes on the writing assignment and on goals and concerns about the writing project (topic, audience, purpose, situation, type), and alert them to any problems or concerns. As the writer, you want to alert reviewers to these problems; make it clear what kinds of things you are trying to do. Similarly, peer reviewers should ask writers whose work they are peer-reviewing to supply information on their objectives and concerns. The peer-review questions should be specific like the following:
Does my explanation of virtual machines make sense to you? Would it make sense to a non-expert audience? In general, is my writing style too technical? Are my title and headings indicative of the content that follows? Do the images communicate clearly; do they complement the written text? (I'm worried that they communicate too much information-that they'll be more distracting than illuminating).
Peer-reviewing strategies
When you peer-review other people's writing, remember that you should consider all aspects of that writing, not just—in fact, least of all—the grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Read the draft several times, looking for a complete range of potential problem areas like the following:
- Suitability to the audience
- Persuasiveness, purpose
- Content, organization, arrangement of ideas
- Clarity of focus
- Coherence, use of transitions
- Title, introduction, and conclusion.
- Sentence style and clarity
- Handling of graphics, images, other embedded media
Now that you know what to look for, turn your attention to the way you deliver your comments.
- Be careful about making comments or criticisms that are based on personal bias or preferences. Base your criticisms and suggestions for improvements on the accepted guidelines, concepts, and rules. If you do make a comment that is really your own preference, explain it
- Explain the problems you find fully. Don't just say a paper "seems disorganized." Explain what is disorganized about it. Use specific details from the draft to demonstrate your case.
- Whenever you criticize something in the writer's draft, try to suggest some way to correct the problem. It's not enough to tell the writer that her paper seems disorganized, for example. Explain how that problem could be solved.
- Base your comments and criticisms on accepted guidelines, concepts, principles, and rules. It's not enough to tell a writer that two paragraphs ought to be switched, for example. State the reason why: more general, introductory information should come first.
- Avoid rewriting the draft that you are reviewing. In your efforts to suggest improvements and corrections, don't go overboard and rewrite the draft yourself. Doing so steals from the original writer the opportunity to learn and improve as a writer.
- Find positive, encouraging things to say about the draft you're reviewing. Compliments, even small ones, are usually wildly appreciated. Read through the draft at least once looking for things that were done well, and then let the writer know about them.
The Peer-review Summary
Once you've finished a peer review, it's a good idea to write a summary of your thoughts, observations, impressions, criticisms, or feelings about the rough draft. Remember that a draft is always in need of improvement, so communicate in an encouraging way, focusing your comments on the direction of the next draft.
Responding to Peer Review Feedback
If you're the one receiving feedback from a peer review, it's important not to take any of the feedback personally, or to be upset by comments and suggestions that you disagree with. Rather, be appreciative of the hard work that someone else did to offer suggestions and feedback.
Write down some ideas for improving some of the issues that were raised by the peer reviewer. If you disagree with any of the comments, write down your reasons. If possible, have a conversation with the peer reviewer to find the cause of the disagreement. Sometimes you will not agree with the peer reviewer, but there is still lots of value in receiving a comment that you do not agree with, as it forces you to think deeper about your justifications for keeping something in place.
For more commenting strategies for a peer review, check out the following video:
License and Attribution
