writing a peer review of an essay

Editorial Manager, our manuscript submissions site will be unavailable between 12pm April 5, 2024 and 12pm April 8 2024 (Pacific Standard Time). We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections

How to Write a Peer Review

When you write a peer review for a manuscript, what should you include in your comments? What should you leave out? And how should the review be formatted?

This guide provides quick tips for writing and organizing your reviewer report.

Review Outline

Use an outline for your reviewer report so it’s easy for the editors and author to follow. This will also help you keep your comments organized.

Think about structuring your review like an inverted pyramid. Put the most important information at the top, followed by details and examples in the center, and any additional points at the very bottom.

Here’s how your outline might look:

1. Summary of the research and your overall impression

In your own words, summarize what the manuscript claims to report. This shows the editor how you interpreted the manuscript and will highlight any major differences in perspective between you and the other reviewers. Give an overview of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses. Think about this as your “take-home” message for the editors. End this section with your recommended course of action.

2. Discussion of specific areas for improvement

It’s helpful to divide this section into two parts: one for major issues and one for minor issues. Within each section, you can talk about the biggest issues first or go systematically figure-by-figure or claim-by-claim. Number each item so that your points are easy to follow (this will also make it easier for the authors to respond to each point). Refer to specific lines, pages, sections, or figure and table numbers so the authors (and editors) know exactly what you’re talking about.

Major vs. minor issues

What’s the difference between a major and minor issue? Major issues should consist of the essential points the authors need to address before the manuscript can proceed. Make sure you focus on what is  fundamental for the current study . In other words, it’s not helpful to recommend additional work that would be considered the “next step” in the study. Minor issues are still important but typically will not affect the overall conclusions of the manuscript. Here are some examples of what would might go in the “minor” category:

• Missing references (but depending on what is missing, this could also be a major issue)
• Technical clarifications (e.g., the authors should clarify how a reagent works)
• Data presentation (e.g., the authors should present p-values differently)
• Typos, spelling, grammar, and phrasing issues

3. Any other points

Confidential comments for the editors.

Some journals have a space for reviewers to enter confidential comments about the manuscript. Use this space to mention concerns about the submission that you’d want the editors to consider before sharing your feedback with the authors, such as concerns about ethical guidelines or language quality. Any serious issues should be raised directly and immediately with the journal as well.

This section is also where you will disclose any potentially competing interests, and mention whether you’re willing to look at a revised version of the manuscript.

Do not use this space to critique the manuscript, since comments entered here will not be passed along to the authors.  If you’re not sure what should go in the confidential comments, read the reviewer instructions or check with the journal first before submitting your review. If you are reviewing for a journal that does not offer a space for confidential comments, consider writing to the editorial office directly with your concerns.

Get this outline in a template

Giving Feedback

Giving feedback is hard. Giving effective feedback can be even more challenging. Remember that your ultimate goal is to discuss what the authors would need to do in order to qualify for publication. The point is not to nitpick every piece of the manuscript. Your focus should be on providing constructive and critical feedback that the authors can use to improve their study.

If you’ve ever had your own work reviewed, you already know that it’s not always easy to receive feedback. Follow the golden rule: Write the type of review you’d want to receive if you were the author. Even if you decide not to identify yourself in the review, you should write comments that you would be comfortable signing your name to.

In your comments, use phrases like “ the authors’ discussion of X” instead of “ your discussion of X .” This will depersonalize the feedback and keep the focus on the manuscript instead of the authors.

General guidelines for effective feedback

• Justify your recommendation with concrete evidence and specific examples.
• Be specific so the authors know what they need to do to improve.
• Be thorough. This might be the only time you read the manuscript.
• Be professional and respectful. The authors will be reading these comments too.
• Remember to say what you liked about the manuscript!

Don’t

• Recommend additional experiments or  unnecessary elements that are out of scope for the study or for the journal criteria.
• Tell the authors exactly how to revise their manuscript—you don’t need to do their work for them.
• Use the review to promote your own research or hypotheses.
• Focus on typos and grammar. If the manuscript needs significant editing for language and writing quality, just mention this in your comments.
• Submit your review without proofreading it and checking everything one more time.

Before and After: Sample Reviewer Comments

Keeping in mind the guidelines above, how do you put your thoughts into words? Here are some sample “before” and “after” reviewer comments

✗ Before

“The authors appear to have no idea what they are talking about. I don’t think they have read any of the literature on this topic.”

✓ After

“The study fails to address how the findings relate to previous research in this area. The authors should rewrite their Introduction and Discussion to reference the related literature, especially recently published work such as Darwin et al.”

“The writing is so bad, it is practically unreadable. I could barely bring myself to finish it.”

“While the study appears to be sound, the language is unclear, making it difficult to follow. I advise the authors work with a writing coach or copyeditor to improve the flow and readability of the text.”

“It’s obvious that this type of experiment should have been included. I have no idea why the authors didn’t use it. This is a big mistake.”

“The authors are off to a good start, however, this study requires additional experiments, particularly [type of experiment]. Alternatively, the authors should include more information that clarifies and justifies their choice of methods.”

Suggested Language for Tricky Situations

You might find yourself in a situation where you’re not sure how to explain the problem or provide feedback in a constructive and respectful way. Here is some suggested language for common issues you might experience.

What you think : The manuscript is fatally flawed. What you could say: “The study does not appear to be sound” or “the authors have missed something crucial”.

What you think : You don’t completely understand the manuscript. What you could say : “The authors should clarify the following sections to avoid confusion…”

What you think : The technical details don’t make sense. What you could say : “The technical details should be expanded and clarified to ensure that readers understand exactly what the researchers studied.”

What you think: The writing is terrible. What you could say : “The authors should revise the language to improve readability.”

What you think : The authors have over-interpreted the findings. What you could say : “The authors aim to demonstrate [XYZ], however, the data does not fully support this conclusion. Specifically…”

What does a good review look like?

Check out the peer review examples at F1000 Research to see how other reviewers write up their reports and give constructive feedback to authors.

Time to Submit the Review!

Be sure you turn in your report on time. Need an extension? Tell the journal so that they know what to expect. If you need a lot of extra time, the journal might need to contact other reviewers or notify the author about the delay.

Tip: Building a relationship with an editor

You’ll be more likely to be asked to review again if you provide high-quality feedback and if you turn in the review on time. Especially if it’s your first review for a journal, it’s important to show that you are reliable. Prove yourself once and you’ll get asked to review again!

• Getting started as a reviewer
• Responding to an invitation
• Reading a manuscript
• Writing a peer review

The contents of the Peer Review Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

The contents of the Writing Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples

What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples

Published on December 17, 2021 by Tegan George . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Peer review, sometimes referred to as refereeing , is the process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Using strict criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decides whether to accept each submission for publication.

Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to the stringent process they go through before publication.

There are various types of peer review. The main difference between them is to what extent the authors, reviewers, and editors know each other’s identities. The most common types are:

• Single-blind review
• Double-blind review
• Triple-blind review

Collaborative review

Open review.

Relatedly, peer assessment is a process where your peers provide you with feedback on something you’ve written, based on a set of criteria or benchmarks from an instructor. They then give constructive feedback, compliments, or guidance to help you improve your draft.

Table of contents

What is the purpose of peer review, types of peer review, the peer review process, providing feedback to your peers, peer review example, advantages of peer review, criticisms of peer review, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about peer reviews.

Many academic fields use peer review, largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the manuscript. For this reason, academic journals are among the most credible sources you can refer to.

However, peer review is also common in non-academic settings. The United Nations, the European Union, and many individual nations use peer review to evaluate grant applications. It is also widely used in medical and health-related fields as a teaching or quality-of-care measure.

Peer assessment is often used in the classroom as a pedagogical tool. Both receiving feedback and providing it are thought to enhance the learning process, helping students think critically and collaboratively.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Depending on the journal, there are several types of peer review.

Single-blind peer review

The most common type of peer review is single-blind (or single anonymized) review . Here, the names of the reviewers are not known by the author.

While this gives the reviewers the ability to give feedback without the possibility of interference from the author, there has been substantial criticism of this method in the last few years. Many argue that single-blind reviewing can lead to poaching or intellectual theft or that anonymized comments cause reviewers to be too harsh.

Double-blind peer review

In double-blind (or double anonymized) review , both the author and the reviewers are anonymous.

Arguments for double-blind review highlight that this mitigates any risk of prejudice on the side of the reviewer, while protecting the nature of the process. In theory, it also leads to manuscripts being published on merit rather than on the reputation of the author.

Triple-blind peer review

While triple-blind (or triple anonymized) review —where the identities of the author, reviewers, and editors are all anonymized—does exist, it is difficult to carry out in practice.

Proponents of adopting triple-blind review for journal submissions argue that it minimizes potential conflicts of interest and biases. However, ensuring anonymity is logistically challenging, and current editing software is not always able to fully anonymize everyone involved in the process.

In collaborative review , authors and reviewers interact with each other directly throughout the process. However, the identity of the reviewer is not known to the author. This gives all parties the opportunity to resolve any inconsistencies or contradictions in real time, and provides them a rich forum for discussion. It can mitigate the need for multiple rounds of editing and minimize back-and-forth.

Collaborative review can be time- and resource-intensive for the journal, however. For these collaborations to occur, there has to be a set system in place, often a technological platform, with staff monitoring and fixing any bugs or glitches.

Lastly, in open review , all parties know each other’s identities throughout the process. Often, open review can also include feedback from a larger audience, such as an online forum, or reviewer feedback included as part of the final published product.

While many argue that greater transparency prevents plagiarism or unnecessary harshness, there is also concern about the quality of future scholarship if reviewers feel they have to censor their comments.

In general, the peer review process includes the following steps:

• First, the author submits the manuscript to the editor.
• Reject the manuscript and send it back to the author, or
• Send it onward to the selected peer reviewer(s)
• Next, the peer review process occurs. The reviewer provides feedback, addressing any major or minor issues with the manuscript, and gives their advice regarding what edits should be made.
• Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits and resubmit it to the editor for publication.

In an effort to be transparent, many journals are now disclosing who reviewed each article in the published product. There are also increasing opportunities for collaboration and feedback, with some journals allowing open communication between reviewers and authors.

It can seem daunting at first to conduct a peer review or peer assessment. If you’re not sure where to start, there are several best practices you can use.

Summarize the argument in your own words

Summarizing the main argument helps the author see how their argument is interpreted by readers, and gives you a jumping-off point for providing feedback. If you’re having trouble doing this, it’s a sign that the argument needs to be clearer, more concise, or worded differently.

If the author sees that you’ve interpreted their argument differently than they intended, they have an opportunity to address any misunderstandings when they get the manuscript back.

Separate your feedback into major and minor issues

It can be challenging to keep feedback organized. One strategy is to start out with any major issues and then flow into the more minor points. It’s often helpful to keep your feedback in a numbered list, so the author has concrete points to refer back to.

Major issues typically consist of any problems with the style, flow, or key points of the manuscript. Minor issues include spelling errors, citation errors, or other smaller, easy-to-apply feedback.

Tip: Try not to focus too much on the minor issues. If the manuscript has a lot of typos, consider making a note that the author should address spelling and grammar issues, rather than going through and fixing each one.

The best feedback you can provide is anything that helps them strengthen their argument or resolve major stylistic issues.

Give the type of feedback that you would like to receive

No one likes being criticized, and it can be difficult to give honest feedback without sounding overly harsh or critical. One strategy you can use here is the “compliment sandwich,” where you “sandwich” your constructive criticism between two compliments.

Be sure you are giving concrete, actionable feedback that will help the author submit a successful final draft. While you shouldn’t tell them exactly what they should do, your feedback should help them resolve any issues they may have overlooked.

As a rule of thumb, your feedback should be:

• Easy to understand
• Constructive

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Below is a brief annotated research example. You can view examples of peer feedback by hovering over the highlighted sections.

Influence of phone use on sleep

Studies show that teens from the US are getting less sleep than they were a decade ago (Johnson, 2019) . On average, teens only slept for 6 hours a night in 2021, compared to 8 hours a night in 2011. Johnson mentions several potential causes, such as increased anxiety, changed diets, and increased phone use.

The current study focuses on the effect phone use before bedtime has on the number of hours of sleep teens are getting.

For this study, a sample of 300 teens was recruited using social media, such as Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. The first week, all teens were allowed to use their phone the way they normally would, in order to obtain a baseline.

The sample was then divided into 3 groups:

• Group 1 was not allowed to use their phone before bedtime.
• Group 2 used their phone for 1 hour before bedtime.
• Group 3 used their phone for 3 hours before bedtime.

All participants were asked to go to sleep around 10 p.m. to control for variation in bedtime . In the morning, their Fitbit showed the number of hours they’d slept. They kept track of these numbers themselves for 1 week.

Two independent t tests were used in order to compare Group 1 and Group 2, and Group 1 and Group 3. The first t test showed no significant difference ( p > .05) between the number of hours for Group 1 ( M = 7.8, SD = 0.6) and Group 2 ( M = 7.0, SD = 0.8). The second t test showed a significant difference ( p < .01) between the average difference for Group 1 ( M = 7.8, SD = 0.6) and Group 3 ( M = 6.1, SD = 1.5).

This shows that teens sleep fewer hours a night if they use their phone for over an hour before bedtime, compared to teens who use their phone for 0 to 1 hours.

Peer review is an established and hallowed process in academia, dating back hundreds of years. It provides various fields of study with metrics, expectations, and guidance to ensure published work is consistent with predetermined standards.

• Protects the quality of published research

Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. Any content that raises red flags for reviewers can be closely examined in the review stage, preventing plagiarized or duplicated research from being published.

• Gives you access to feedback from experts in your field

Peer review represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field and to improve your writing through their feedback and guidance. Experts with knowledge about your subject matter can give you feedback on both style and content, and they may also suggest avenues for further research that you hadn’t yet considered.

• Helps you identify any weaknesses in your argument

Peer review acts as a first defense, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process. This way, you’ll end up with a more robust, more cohesive article.

While peer review is a widely accepted metric for credibility, it’s not without its drawbacks.

• Reviewer bias

The more transparent double-blind system is not yet very common, which can lead to bias in reviewing. A common criticism is that an excellent paper by a new researcher may be declined, while an objectively lower-quality submission by an established researcher would be accepted.

• Delays in publication

The thoroughness of the peer review process can lead to significant delays in publishing time. Research that was current at the time of submission may not be as current by the time it’s published. There is also high risk of publication bias , where journals are more likely to publish studies with positive findings than studies with negative findings.

• Risk of human error

By its very nature, peer review carries a risk of human error. In particular, falsification often cannot be detected, given that reviewers would have to replicate entire experiments to ensure the validity of results.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Thematic analysis
• Discourse analysis
• Cohort study
• Ethnography

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Conformity bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Availability heuristic
• Attrition bias
• Social desirability bias

Peer review is a process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Utilizing rigorous criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decide whether to accept each submission for publication. For this reason, academic journals are often considered among the most credible sources you can use in a research project– provided that the journal itself is trustworthy and well-regarded.

In general, the peer review process follows the following steps: 

• Reject the manuscript and send it back to author, or 
• Send it onward to the selected peer reviewer(s) 
• Next, the peer review process occurs. The reviewer provides feedback, addressing any major or minor issues with the manuscript, and gives their advice regarding what edits should be made. 
• Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits, and resubmit it to the editor for publication.

Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. It also represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field. It acts as a first defense, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process.

Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to this stringent process they go through before publication.

Many academic fields use peer review , largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the published manuscript.

However, peer review is also common in non-academic settings. The United Nations, the European Union, and many individual nations use peer review to evaluate grant applications. It is also widely used in medical and health-related fields as a teaching or quality-of-care measure. 

A credible source should pass the CRAAP test  and follow these guidelines:

• The information should be up to date and current.
• The author and publication should be a trusted authority on the subject you are researching.
• The sources the author cited should be easy to find, clear, and unbiased.
• For a web source, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

George, T. (2023, June 22). What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 8, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/peer-review/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, ethical considerations in research | types & examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

How to Write a Peer Review: 12 things you need to know

Joanna Wilkinson

Learning how to peer review is no small feat. You’re responsible for protecting the public from false findings and research flaws, while at the same time helping to uncover legitimate breakthroughs. You’re also asked to constructively critique the research of your peers, some of which has taken blood, sweat, tears and years to put together.

Despite this, peer review doesn’t need to be hard or nerve-wracking–or make you feel like you’re doomed to fail.

We’ve put together  12 tips to help with peer review , and you can learn the entire process with our free peer review training course, the  Web of Science Academy . This on-demand, practical course and comes with one-to-one support with your own mentor. You’ll have exclusive access to our peer review template, plenty of expert review examples to learn from, and by the end of it, you’ll not only be a certified reviewer, we’ll help put you in front of editors in your field.

The peer review process

Journal peer review is a critical tool for ensuring the quality and integrity of the research literature. It is the process by which researchers use their expert knowledge of a topic to assess an article for its accuracy and rigor, and to help make sure it builds on and adds to the current literature.

It’s actually a very structured process; it can be learned and improved the more you do it, and you’ll become faster and more confident as time goes on. Soon enough, you’ll even start benefiting from the process yourself.

Peer review not only helps to maintain the quality and integrity of literature in your field, it’s key to your own development as a researcher. It’s a great way to keep abreast of current research, impress editors at elite journals, and hone your critical analysis skills. It teaches you how to  review a manuscript ,  spot common flaws in research papers , and improve your own chances of being a  successful published author .

12-step guide to writing a peer review

To get the most out of the peer review process, you’ll want to keep some best practice tips and techniques in mind from the start. This will help you write a review around two to three pages (four maximum) in length.

We asked an expert panel of researchers what steps they take to ensure a thorough and robust review. We then compiled their advice into 12 easy steps with link to blog posts for further information:

1)   Make sure you have the right expertise.  Check out our post,  Are you the right reviewer?  for our checklist to assess whether you should take on a certain peer review request.

2)   Visit the journal web page to learn their reviewer-specific instructions.  Check the manuscript fits in the journal format and the references are standardised (if the editor has not already done so).

3)   Skim the paper very quickly to get a general sense of the article.  Underline key words and arguments, and summarise key points. This will help you quickly “tune in” to the paper during the next read.

4)   Sit in a quiet place and read the manuscript critically.  Make sure you have the tables, figures and references visible. Ask yourself key questions, including: Does it have a relevant title and valuable research question? Are key papers referenced? What’s the author’s motivation for the study and the idea behind it? Are the data and tools suitable and correct? What’s new about it? Why does that matter? Are there other considerations? Find out more in our  12-step guide to critically reviewing a manuscript .

5)   Take notes about the major, moderate and minor revisions that need to be made . You need to make sure you can put the paper down and come back to it with fresh eyes later on. Note-taking is essential for this.

6)   Are there any methodological concerns or common research errors?  Check out our guide for  common research flaws to watch out for .

7)   Create a list of things to check.  For example, does the referenced study actually show what is claimed in the paper?

8)   Assess language and grammar, and make sure it’s a right ‘fit’ for the journal.  Does the paper flow? Does it have connectivity? Does it have clarity? Are the words and structure concise and effective?

9)   Is it new research?  Check previous publications of the authors and of other authors in the field to be sure that the results were not published before.

10)   Summarise your notes for the editor.  This can include overview, contribution, strengths & weaknesses, and acceptability. You can also include the manuscript’s contribution/context for the authors (really just to clarify whether you view it similarly, or not), then prioritise and collate the major revisions and minor/specific revisions into feedback. Try to compile this in a logical way, grouping similar things under a common heading where possible, and numbering them for ease of reference.

11)   Give specific recommendations to the authors for changes.  What do you want them to work on? in the manuscript that the authors can do.

12)  Give your recommendation to the editor.

We hope these 12 steps help get you on your way for your first peer review, or improving the structure of your current reviews. And remember, if you’d like to master the skills involved in peer review and get access to our Peer Review Template, sign up for our  Web of Science Academy .

Our expert panel of reviewers include:  Ana Marie Florea  (Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf),  James Cotter  (University of Otago), and  Robert Faff  (University of Queensland). These reviewers are all recipients of the Global Peer Review Awards powered by Publons. They also and boast hundreds of pre-publication peer reviews for more than 100 different journals and sit on numerous editorial boards.

Related posts

Unlocking u.k. research excellence: key insights from the research professional news live summit.

For better insights, assess research performance at the department level

Getting the Full Picture: Institutional unification in the Web of Science

The Savvy Scientist

Experiences of a London PhD student and beyond

My Complete Guide to Academic Peer Review: Example Comments & How to Make Paper Revisions

Once you’ve submitted your paper to an academic journal you’re in the nerve-racking position of waiting to hear back about the fate of your work. In this post we’ll cover everything from potential responses you could receive from the editor and example peer review comments through to how to submit revisions.

My first first-author paper was reviewed by five (yes 5!) reviewers and since then I’ve published several others papers, so now I want to share the insights I’ve gained which will hopefully help you out!

This post is part of my series to help with writing and publishing your first academic journal paper. You can find the whole series here: Writing an academic journal paper .

The Peer Review Process

When you submit a paper to a journal, the first thing that will happen is one of the editorial team will do an initial assessment of whether or not the article is of interest. They may decide for a number of reasons that the article isn’t suitable for the journal and may reject the submission before even sending it out to reviewers.

If this happens hopefully they’ll have let you know quickly so that you can move on and make a start targeting a different journal instead.

Handy way to check the status – Sign in to the journal’s submission website and have a look at the status of your journal article online. If you can see that the article is under review then you’ve passed that first hurdle!

When your paper is under peer review, the journal will have set out a framework to help the reviewers assess your work. Generally they’ll be deciding whether the work is to a high enough standard.

Interested in reading about what reviewers are looking for? Check out my post on being a reviewer for the first time. Peer-Reviewing Journal Articles: Should You Do It? Sharing What I Learned From My First Experiences .

Once the reviewers have made their assessments, they’ll return their comments and suggestions to the editor who will then decide how the article should proceed.

How Many People Review Each Paper?

The editor ideally wants a clear decision from the reviewers as to whether the paper should be accepted or rejected. If there is no consensus among the reviewers then the editor may send your paper out to more reviewers to better judge whether or not to accept the paper.

If you’ve got a lot of reviewers on your paper it isn’t necessarily that the reviewers disagreed about accepting your paper.

You can also end up with lots of reviewers in the following circumstance:

• The editor asks a certain academic to review the paper but doesn’t get a response from them
• The editor asks another academic to step in
• The initial reviewer then responds

Next thing you know your work is being scrutinised by extra pairs of eyes!

As mentioned in the intro, my first paper ended up with five reviewers!

Potential Journal Responses

Assuming that the paper passes the editor’s initial evaluation and is sent out for peer-review, here are the potential decisions you may receive:

• Reject the paper. Sadly the editor and reviewers decided against publishing your work. Hopefully they’ll have included feedback which you can incorporate into your submission to another journal. I’ve had some rejections and the reviewer comments were genuinely useful.
• Accept the paper with major revisions . Good news: with some more work your paper could get published. If you make all the changes that the reviewers suggest, and they’re happy with your responses, then it should get accepted. Some people see major revisions as a disappointment but it doesn’t have to be.
• Accept the paper with minor revisions. This is like getting a major revisions response but better! Generally minor revisions can be addressed quickly and often come down to clarifying things for the reviewers: rewording, addressing minor concerns etc and don’t require any more experiments or analysis. You stand a really good chance of getting the paper published if you’ve been given a minor revisions result.
• Accept the paper with no revisions . I’m not sure that this ever really happens, but it is potentially possible if the reviewers are already completely happy with your paper!

Keen to know more about academic publishing? My series on publishing is now available as a free eBook. It includes my experiences being a peer reviewer. Click the image below for access.

Example Peer Review Comments & Addressing Reviewer Feedback

If your paper has been accepted but requires revisions, the editor will forward to you the comments and concerns that the reviewers raised. You’ll have to address these points so that the reviewers are satisfied your work is of a publishable standard.

It is extremely important to take this stage seriously. If you don’t do a thorough job then the reviewers won’t recommend that your paper is accepted for publication!

You’ll have to put together a resubmission with your co-authors and there are two crucial things you must do:

• Make revisions to your manuscript based off reviewer comments
• Reply to the reviewers, telling them the changes you’ve made and potentially changes you’ve not made in instances where you disagree with them. Read on to see some example peer review comments and how I replied!

Before making any changes to your actual paper, I suggest having a thorough read through the reviewer comments.

Once you’ve read through the comments you might be keen to dive straight in and make the changes in your paper. Instead, I actually suggest firstly drafting your reply to the reviewers.

Why start with the reply to reviewers? Well in a way it is actually potentially more important than the changes you’re making in the manuscript.

Imagine when a reviewer receives your response to their comments: you want them to be able to read your reply document and be satisfied that their queries have largely been addressed without even having to open the updated draft of your manuscript. If you do a good job with the replies, the reviewers will be better placed to recommend the paper be accepted!

By starting with your reply to the reviewers you’ll also clarify for yourself what changes actually have to be made to the paper.

So let’s now cover how to reply to the reviewers.

1. Replying to Journal Reviewers

It is so important to make sure you do a solid job addressing your reviewers’ feedback in your reply document. If you leave anything unanswered you’re asking for trouble, which in this case means either a rejection or another round of revisions: though some journals only give you one shot! Therefore make sure you’re thorough, not just with making the changes but demonstrating the changes in your replies.

It’s no good putting in the work to revise your paper but not evidence it in your reply to the reviewers!

There may be points that reviewers raise which don’t appear to necessitate making changes to your manuscript, but this is rarely the case. Even for comments or concerns they raise which are already addressed in the paper, clearly those areas could be clarified or highlighted to ensure that future readers don’t get confused.

How to Reply to Journal Reviewers

Some journals will request a certain format for how you should structure a reply to the reviewers. If so this should be included in the email you receive from the journal’s editor. If there are no certain requirements here is what I do:

• Copy and paste all replies into a document.
• Separate out each point they raise onto a separate line. Often they’ll already be nicely numbered but sometimes they actually still raise separate issues in one block of text. I suggest separating it all out so that each query is addressed separately.
• Form your reply for each point that they raise. I start by just jotting down notes for roughly how I’ll respond. Once I’m happy with the key message I’ll write it up into a scripted reply.
• Finally, go through and format it nicely and include line number references for the changes you’ve made in the manuscript.

By the end you’ll have a document that looks something like:

Reviewer 1 Point 1: [Quote the reviewer’s comment] Response 1: [Address point 1 and say what revisions you’ve made to the paper] Point 2: [Quote the reviewer’s comment] Response 2: [Address point 2 and say what revisions you’ve made to the paper] Then repeat this for all comments by all reviewers!

What To Actually Include In Your Reply To Reviewers

For every single point raised by the reviewers, you should do the following:

• Address their concern: Do you agree or disagree with the reviewer’s comment? Either way, make your position clear and justify any differences of opinion. If the reviewer wants more clarity on an issue, provide it. It is really important that you actually address their concerns in your reply. Don’t just say “Thanks, we’ve changed the text”. Actually include everything they want to know in your reply. Yes this means you’ll be repeating things between your reply and the revisions to the paper but that’s fine.
• Reference changes to your manuscript in your reply. Once you’ve answered the reviewer’s question, you must show that you’re actually using this feedback to revise the manuscript. The best way to do this is to refer to where the changes have been made throughout the text. I personally do this by include line references. Make sure you save this right until the end once you’ve finished making changes!

Example Peer Review Comments & Author Replies

In order to understand how this works in practice I’d suggest reading through a few real-life example peer review comments and replies.

The good news is that published papers often now include peer-review records, including the reviewer comments and authors’ replies. So here are two feedback examples from my own papers:

Example Peer Review: Paper 1

Quantifying 3D Strain in Scaffold Implants for Regenerative Medicine, J. Clark et al. 2020 – Available here

This paper was reviewed by two academics and was given major revisions. The journal gave us only 10 days to get them done, which was a bit stressful!

• Reviewer Comments
• My reply to Reviewer 1
• My reply to Reviewer 2

One round of reviews wasn’t enough for Reviewer 2…

• My reply to Reviewer 2 – ROUND 2

Thankfully it was accepted after the second round of review, and actually ended up being selected for this accolade, whatever most notable means?!

Nice to see our recent paper highlighted as one of the most notable articles, great start to the week! Thanks @Materials_mdpi 😀 #openaccess & available here: https://t.co/AKWLcyUtpC @ICBiomechanics @julianrjones @saman_tavana pic.twitter.com/ciOX2vftVL — Jeff Clark (@savvy_scientist) December 7, 2020

Example Peer Review: Paper 2

Exploratory Full-Field Mechanical Analysis across the Osteochondral Tissue—Biomaterial Interface in an Ovine Model, J. Clark et al. 2020 – Available here

This paper was reviewed by three academics and was given minor revisions.

• My reply to Reviewer 3

I’m pleased to say it was accepted after the first round of revisions 🙂

Things To Be Aware Of When Replying To Peer Review Comments

• Generally, try to make a revision to your paper for every comment. No matter what the reviewer’s comment is, you can probably make a change to the paper which will improve your manuscript. For example, if the reviewer seems confused about something, improve the clarity in your paper. If you disagree with the reviewer, include better justification for your choices in the paper. It is far more favourable to take on board the reviewer’s feedback and act on it with actual changes to your draft.
• Organise your responses. Sometimes journals will request the reply to each reviewer is sent in a separate document. Unless they ask for it this way I stick them all together in one document with subheadings eg “Reviewer 1” etc.
• Make sure you address each and every question. If you dodge anything then the reviewer will have a valid reason to reject your resubmission. You don’t need to agree with them on every point but you do need to justify your position.
• Be courteous. No need to go overboard with compliments but stay polite as reviewers are providing constructive feedback. I like to add in “We thank the reviewer for their suggestion” every so often where it genuinely warrants it. Remember that written language doesn’t always carry tone very well, so rather than risk coming off as abrasive if I don’t agree with the reviewer’s suggestion I’d rather be generous with friendliness throughout the reply.

2. How to Make Revisions To Your Paper

Once you’ve drafted your replies to the reviewers, you’ve actually done a lot of the ground work for making changes to the paper. Remember, you are making changes to the paper based off the reviewer comments so you should regularly be referring back to the comments to ensure you’re not getting sidetracked.

Reviewers could request modifications to any part of your paper. You may need to collect more data, do more analysis, reformat some figures, add in more references or discussion or any number of other revisions! So I can’t really help with everything, even so here is some general advice:

• Use tracked-changes. This is so important. The editor and reviewers need to be able to see every single change you’ve made compared to your first submission. Sometimes the journal will want a clean copy too but always start with tracked-changes enabled then just save a clean copy afterwards.
• Be thorough . Try to not leave any opportunity for the reviewers to not recommend your paper to be published. Any chance you have to satisfy their concerns, take it. For example if the reviewers are concerned about sample size and you have the means to include other experiments, consider doing so. If they want to see more justification or references, be thorough. To be clear again, this doesn’t necessarily mean making changes you don’t believe in. If you don’t want to make a change, you can justify your position to the reviewers. Either way, be thorough.
• Use your reply to the reviewers as a guide. In your draft reply to the reviewers you should have already included a lot of details which can be incorporated into the text. If they raised a concern, you should be able to go and find references which address the concern. This reference should appear both in your reply and in the manuscript. As mentioned above I always suggest starting with the reply, then simply adding these details to your manuscript once you know what needs doing.

Putting Together Your Paper Revision Submission

• Once you’ve drafted your reply to the reviewers and revised manuscript, make sure to give sufficient time for your co-authors to give feedback. Also give yourself time afterwards to make changes based off of their feedback. I ideally give a week for the feedback and another few days to make the changes.
• When you’re satisfied that you’ve addressed the reviewer comments, you can think about submitting it. The journal may ask for another letter to the editor, if not I simply add to the top of the reply to reviewers something like:

“Dear [Editor], We are grateful to the reviewer for their positive and constructive comments that have led to an improved manuscript.  Here, we address their concerns/suggestions and have tracked changes throughout the revised manuscript.”

Once you’re ready to submit:

• Double check that you’ve done everything that the editor requested in their email
• Double check that the file names and formats are as required
• Triple check you’ve addressed the reviewer comments adequately
• Click submit and bask in relief!

You won’t always get the paper accepted, but if you’re thorough and present your revisions clearly then you’ll put yourself in a really good position. Remember to try as hard as possible to satisfy the reviewers’ concerns to minimise any opportunity for them to not accept your revisions!

Best of luck!

I really hope that this post has been useful to you and that the example peer review section has given you some ideas for how to respond. I know how daunting it can be to reply to reviewers, and it is really important to try to do a good job and give yourself the best chances of success. If you’d like to read other posts in my academic publishing series you can find them here:

Blog post series: Writing an academic journal paper

Subscribe below to stay up to date with new posts in the academic publishing series and other PhD content.

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)

Related Posts

Thesis Title: Examples and Suggestions from a PhD Grad

23rd February 2024 23rd February 2024

How to Stay Healthy as a Student

25th January 2024 25th January 2024

How to Master LinkedIn for Academics & PhD Students

22nd December 2023 22nd December 2023

2 Comments on “My Complete Guide to Academic Peer Review: Example Comments & How to Make Paper Revisions”

Excellent article! Thank you for the inspiration!

No worries at all, thanks for your kind comment!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Privacy Overview

A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Peer Review

The formula for writing a peer review is an organized process, but it’s easy to do when you follow a few simple steps. Writing a well-structured peer review can help maintain the quality and integrity of the research published in your field. According to Publons, the peer-review process “teaches you how to review a manuscript, spot common flaws in research papers, and improve your own chances of being a successful published author.” Listed below are four key steps to writing a quality peer review.

1. Read the manuscript in its entirety

It is important to read the manuscript through to make sure you are a good fit to assess the research. Also, the first read through is significant because this is when you develop your first impression of the article. Should a reviewer suspect plagiarism of any kind, s/he should contact the journal office at [email protected] .

2. Re-read the manuscript and take notes

After the first read through, you can now go back over the manuscript in more detail. For example, you should ask the following questions about the article to develop useful comments and critiques of the research and presentation of the material:

• Is this research appropriate for the journal?
• Does the content have archival value?
• Is this research important to the field?
• Does the introduction clearly explain motivation?
• Is the manuscript clear and balanced?
• Is the author a source of new information?
• Does the paper stay focused on its subject?
• Are the ideas and methods presented worthwhile, new, or creative?
• Does the paper evaluate the strengths and limitations of the work described?
• Is the impact of the results clearly stated?
• Is the paper free from personalities and bias?
• Is the work of others adequately cited?
• Are the tables and figures clear, relevant, and correct?
• Does the author demonstrate knowledge of basic composition skills, including word choice, sentence structure, paragraph development, grammar, punctuation, and spelling?  

Please see SAE’s Reviewer Rubric/Guidelines for a complete list of judgment questions and scoring criteria that will be helpful in determining your recommendation for the paper.

3. Write a clear and constructive review

Comments are mandatory for a peer review . The best way to structure your review is to:

• Open your review with the most important comments—a summarization of the research and your impression of the research.
• Make sure to include feedback on the strengths, as well as the weaknesses, of the manuscript. Examples and explanations of those should consume most of the review. Provide details of what the authors need to do to improve the paper. Point out both minor and major flaws and offer solutions.
• End the review with any additional remarks or suggestions.

There can be various ways to write your review with the structure listed above.

Example of comprehensive review

Writing a bad review for a paper not only frustrates the author but also allows for criticism of the peer-review process. It is important to be fair and give the review the time it deserves. While the comments below may be true, examples are needed to support the claims. What makes the paper of low archival value? What makes the paper great? In addition, there are no comments for suggestions to improve the manuscript, except for improving the grammar in the first example.

Examples of bad reviews:

• Many grammatical issues. Paper should be corrected for grammar and punctuation. Very interesting and timely subject.
• This paper does not have a high archival value; should be rejected.
• Great paper; recommend acceptance.

4. Make a recommendation

The last step for a peer reviewer is making a recommendation of either accept, reject, revise, or transfer. Be sure that your recommendation reflects your review. A recommendation of acceptance upon first review is rare and only to be used if there is no room for improvement.

Additional Reviewer Resources

• Example Review
• Advice and Resources for Reviewers from Publons
• Peer Review Resources from Sense about Science

For questions regarding SAE’s peer-review process or if you would like to be a reviewer, please contact [email protected] .

For questions on how to review in Editorial Manager®, please see Editorial Manager® Guide for Reviewers .

Peer Reviews

Use the guidelines below to learn how best to conduct a peer draft review.

For further information see our handout on How to Proofread.

Before you read and while you read the paper

• Find out what the writer is intending to do in the paper (purpose) and what the intended audience is.
• Find out what the writer wants from a reader at this stage.
• Read (or listen) to the entire draft before commenting.

What to include in your critique

• Praise what works well in the draft; point to specific passages.
• Comment on large issues first (Does the draft respond to the assignment? Are important and interesting ideas presented? Is the main point clear and interesting? Is there a clear focus? Is the draft effectively organized? Is the sequence of points logical? Are ideas adequately developed? If appropriate, is the draft convincing in its argument? Is evidence used properly?). Go on to smaller issues later (awkward or confusing sentences, style, grammar, word choice, proofreading).
• Time is limited (for your response and for the author’s revision), so concentrate on the most important ways the draft could be improved.
• Comment on whether the introduction clearly announces the topic and suggests the approach that will be taken; on whether ideas are clear and understandable.
• Be specific in your response (explain where you get stuck, what you don’t understand) and in your suggestions for revision. And as much as you can, explain why you’re making particular suggestions.
• Try describing what you see (or hear) in the paper–what you see as the main point, what you see as the organizational pattern.
• Identify what’s missing, what needs to be explained more fully. Also identify what can be cut.

How to criticize appropriately

• Be honest (but polite and constructive) in your response
• Don’t argue with the author or with other respondents.

Writing Process and Structure

This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.

Getting Started with Your Paper

Interpreting Writing Assignments from Your Courses

Generating Ideas for Your Paper

Creating an Argument

Thesis vs. Purpose Statements

Developing a Thesis Statement

Architecture of Arguments

Working with Sources

Quoting and Paraphrasing Sources

Using Literary Quotations

Citing Sources in Your Paper

Drafting Your Paper

Introductions

Paragraphing

Developing Strategic Transitions

Conclusions

Revising Your Paper

Reverse Outlines

Revising an Argumentative Paper

Revision Strategies for Longer Projects

Finishing Your Paper

Twelve Common Errors: An Editing Checklist

How to Proofread your Paper

Writing Collaboratively

Collaborative and Group Writing

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

34 Peer Review

In many situations, you will be required to have at least one of your peers review your essay (and you will, in turn, review at least one peer’s essay). Even if you’re not required to exchange drafts with a peer, it’s essential at some point before you begin editing your paper to have another pair of eyes on your paper. Therefore, if you don’t have a peer review assigned or a draft graded by your instructor prior to submitting a final draft, a good idea is to make an appointment with the Academic Learning Center or the Writing Lab at YC. This is a free service for students, so take advantage of it!

In this video, Dr. Ellen Turner discusses the importance of peer review:

Accepting Reviews

You may receive suggestions from peers, instructors, or tutors. It’s important to approach their suggestions with the right attitude. An important attribute of successful people is being teachable. This means that you take on an attitude of humility–acknowledging that you don’t know everything–and that you are willing to learn from others to improve your work. When you receive suggestions for content changes, try to put aside any tendencies to react defensively, so that you can consider their ideas for revisions with an open mind.

If you are accustomed only to getting feedback from instructors that is accompanied by a grade, you may need to get used to the difference between evaluation and judgment. In college settings, instructors often prefer to intervene most extensively after you have completed an outline or a first draft, with evaluative commentary that tends to be suggestive, forward-looking, and free of a final quantitative judgment (like a grade). If you read your instructors’ feedback in those circumstances as final, you can miss the point of the exercise. You’re supposed to do something with this sort of commentary, not just read it as the justification for a (nonexistent) grade.

Sometimes peers think they’re supposed to “sound like an English teacher” so they fall into the trap of “correcting” your draft, but in most cases, the prompts used in college-level peer reviewing discourage that sort of thing. In many situations, your peers will give you ideas that will add value to your paper, and you will want to include them. In other situations, your peers’ ideas will not really work into the plan you have for your paper. It is not unusual for peers to offer ideas that you may not want to implement. Remember, your peers’ ideas are only suggestions, and it is your essay, and you are the person who will make the final decisions. If your peers happen to be a part of the audience to which you are writing, they can sometimes give you invaluable ideas. And if they’re not, take the initiative to find outside readers who might actually be a part of your audience.

If you decide to visit a tutor to get additional help on your paper, it’s very important to be sure that the tutor understands the assignment information. Make sure you bring a clear copy of the assignment with you so the tutor is aware of what the instructor is asking of you. Don’t expect a tutor to simply tell you what to change or to “fix” your paper for you. If possible, have questions in mind to ask about how you might improve your paper. Remember, the paper is ultimately your responsibility, so it’s up to you whether to take all the advice offered by the tutor.

Giving Reviews

Reading a text as a reviewer should be considered both a privilege and an opportunity. The professional world demands the ability to negotiate ideas and work collaboratively to achieve success, and peer review offers a wonderful way to practice those skills. Peer review, then, offers advantages beyond merely helping a classmate earn a better grade. Peer Review offers an opportunity to apply what students have learned in the role of a teacher. By looking at their peers’ work, a student will better retain what has been learned and become a better writer in the process.

Reviewing Responsibly

As peer reviewers approach a text, they should bring with them several qualities: an ability to remain focused on the task of improving the text; an ability to prioritize the needs of the author; and an ability to provide specific, insightful feedback. Peer reviewers should think critically about how well a text fulfills its purpose in regard to the rhetorical situation of the essay. Focusing on how well a fellow student presents his/her argument should help keep peer reviewers from attacking the author as a human being and should prevent the reviewer from hijacking the text with suggestions that change the stance of the author or the purpose of the writing.

Reviewers should understand that the draft is not final. Since the text will likely be revised, focusing on issues of grammar or spelling is not as useful as focusing on the content and rhetorical strategies of the text. In order of importance, reviewers should focus on issues of content, focus, organization, topic, and purpose.

A good reviewer should offer insight that is grounded in the text. Engaging writing critically requires the ability to point out inconsistencies, to question logic, to seek clarification, and to open the author’s eyes to anything he or she may have taken for granted.

Giving great feedback isn’t just something you’ll need to do for your classes–it’s a skill you need for life, too! Learn more in this TED video:

A Process for Reviewing Peer Papers

If you have not been given specific instructions for completing peer review by your instructor, here are some general guidelines to follow:

1)  First, read the paper all the way through, just as you would a poem or a short story. Appreciate what the writer is trying to say before you begin making comments, either good or bad. If you can’t figure out what the writer’s point is, try reading the paper a second time through. Remember, you are part of the audience for this paper, so it’s important that you ‘get it’!

2) Second, hold the paper up against the assignment criteria. When you feel that you understand what the writer is trying to say, jot down what you think his/her main point is. Take a look at the assignment’s major criteria. For an ad analysis, a reviewer might look for a clear thesis statement that indicates the strategies used by the advertiser, a strong description of the ad, a discussion of the magazine in which the ad was located, a discussion of the strategies used with examples from the ad, etc. Does the writer fulfill the criteria?

3)  Give the writer feedback containing at least three positive comments, as well as pointing out at least three areas that the writer could improve. Remember to include specific examples. Don’t just tell a writer his intro lacks luster…give him some ideas to spice it up. Don’t just say, “I like the paper,” give reasons why. Offering suggestions and reasons help the author to make better decisions about revision.

4) Your review should include the following three items: a recap of the main point, three things you like about the paper, and three areas the paper could be improved. As you do so, remember the golden rule. Speak to others with respect and consideration. Your job is to help them do better, not put them in their place. However, just telling someone they did a great job when you see areas they can improve is not fair. Find a balance between constructive criticism and encouragement.

5)  Remember to focus on revision, not on editing or proofreading.

When you are reviewing a peer’s essay, keep in mind that the author likely knows more about the topic than you do, so don’t question content unless you are certain of your facts. Also, do not suggest changes just because you would do it differently or because you want to give the impression that you are offering ideas. Only suggest changes that you seriously think would make the essay stronger.

In some courses, your instructor might give you a specific format to use to when completing peer reviews. Choose one of three sample essays on this site and complete a peer review either using the three step method above or the table below. Compare your suggestions with those given on the site.

Attributions

• Content adapted from “ Reviewing for a Purpose ” licensed under CC BY NC SA 3.0 .
• Content written by Dr. Karen Palmer and licensed under CC-BY NC SA.
• Rubric created by Dr. Sandi Van Lieu and licensed under CC-BY  NC SA. 

The RoughWriter's Guide Copyright © 2020 by Dr. Karen Palmer and Dr. Sandi Van Lieu is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Use of cookies

Lund University uses cookies to ensure that the website functions properly and to improve your experience.

Read more in our cookie policy

• AWELU contents
• Writing at university
• Different kinds of student texts
• Understanding instructions and stylesheets
• Understanding essay/exam questions

Peer review instructions

• Dealing with feedback
• Checklist for writers
• Research writing resources
• Administrative writing resources
• LU language policy
• Introduction
• What characterises academic writing?
• The heterogeneity of academic writing
• Three-part essays
• IMRaD essays
• How to get started on your response paper
• Student literature review
• Annotated bibliography
• Three versions of the RA
• Examples of specificity within disciplines
• Reviews (review articles and book reviews)
• Popular science writing
• Research posters
• Grant proposals
• Writing for Publication
• Salutations
• Structuring your email
• Direct and indirect approaches
• Useful email phrases
• Language tips for email writers
• Writing memos
• Meeting terminology
• The writing process
• Identifying your audience
• Using invention techniques
• Developing reading strategies
• Taking notes
• Identifying language resources
• Choosing a writing tool
• Framing the text: Title and reference list
• Structure of the whole text
• Structuring the argument
• Structure of introductions
• Structure within sections of the text
• Structure within paragraphs
• Signposting the structure
• Using sources
• What needs to be revised?
• How to revise
• Many vs. much
• Other quantifiers
• Quantifiers in a table
• Miscellaneous quantifiers
• Adjectives and adverbs
• Capitalisation
• Sentence fragment
• Run-on sentences
• What or which?
• Singular noun phrases connected by "or"
• Singular noun phrases connected by "either/or"
• Connected singular and plural noun phrases
• Noun phrases conjoined by "and"
• Subjects containing "along with", "as well as", and "besides"
• Indefinite pronouns and agreement
• Sums of money and periods of time
• Words that indicate portions
• Uncountable nouns
• Dependent clauses and agreement
• Agreement with the right noun phrase
• Some important exceptions and words of advice
• Atypical nouns
• The major word classes
• The morphology of the major word classes
• Words and phrases
• Elements in the noun phrase
• Classes of nouns
• Determiners
• Elements in the verb phrase
• Classes of main verbs
• Auxiliary verbs
• Primary auxiliary verbs
• Modal auxiliary verbs
• Meanings of modal auxiliaries
• Marginal auxiliary verbs
• Time and tense
• Simple and progressive forms
• The perfect
• Active and passive voice
• Adjective phrases
• Adverb phrases
• Personal pronouns
• Dummy pronouns
• Possessive pronouns
• Interrogative pronouns
• Indefinite pronouns
• Quantifiers
• Prepositions and prepositional phrases
• More on adverbials
• The order of subjects and verbs
• Subject-Verb agreement
• Hyphen and dash
• English spelling rules
• Commonly confused words
• Differences between British and American spelling
• Vocabulary awareness
• Useful words and phrases
• Using abbreviations
• Register types
• Formal vs. informal
• DOs & DON'Ts
• General information on dictionary use
• Online dictionary resources
• What is a corpus?
• Examples of the usefulness of a corpus
• Using the World Wide Web as a corpus
• Online corpus resources
• Different kinds of sources
• The functions of references
• Paraphrasing
• Summarising
• Reference accuracy
• Reference management tools
• Different kinds of reference styles
• Style format
• Elements of the reference list
• Documentary note style
• Writing acknowledgements
• What is academic integrity?
• Academic integrity and writing
• Academic integrity at LU
• Different kinds of plagiarism
• Avoiding plagiarism
• About Awelu

• Start here AWELU contents Student writing resources Research writing resources Administrative writing resources LU language policy
• Genres Introduction The Nature of Academic Writing Student writing genres Writing in Academic Genres Writing for Publication Writing for Administrative Purposes
• Writing The writing process Pre-writing stage Writing stage Rewriting stage
• Language Introduction Common problems and how to avoid them Selective mini grammar Coherence Punctuation Spelling Focus on vocabulary Register and style Dictionaries Corpora - resources for writer autonomy References
• Referencing Introduction Different kinds of sources The functions of references How to give references Reference accuracy Reference management tools Using a reference style Quick guides to reference styles Writing acknowledgements
• Academic integrity What is academic integrity? Academic integrity and writing Academic integrity at LU Plagiarism

The following guidelines are intended to be used as a starting point for peer-group discussions of texts. Most of the exercises can also be used on your own text if you are working alone.

Please note that:

• Student peer reviewers are usually not expected to correct mistakes, but rather to identify passages that need revision and to discuss with the writer what kind(s) of problem they have identified.
• If you have been asked to peer review another student's text as part of course work, check the instructions that you have received, as there may be other aspects that need to be taken into consideration than the ones listed below.
• Reading and understanding instructions.

Important: Stay focused and keep a professional tone in all peer reviewing. This means avoiding derogatory remarks and irony, as well as praise that does not help the writer. In all comments you give,

• be specific, for instance by giving examples
• pose questions when the text is unclear rather than just stating that it is unclear
• aim to help the writer but do not try to write the paper for them

How to conduct a peer review

In order to get an overview of the text you have been asked to review, read it through, marking only things that stand out and that you will take a closer look at later on. Then go through the text more carefully, focusing on the issues listed below.

• Is there a clear focus in the text? If not, mark passages that seem irrelevant to the topic and passages that need to be clarified.
• For an essay to be focused, it usually needs to have a clearly identified research question . If you cannot identify what the essay sets out to investigate/discuss, comment on this.
• Focused essays also present an argument. If there is no thesis statement (claim), ask the writer what point they wish to make in their text.

For further information about the terms research question and thesis statement , see this video:

• Research questions and thesis statements
• Does the overall structure of the text work? If not, what changes would you suggest?
• Are the paragraphs well structured (are there topic sentences , for instance)? If paragraph structure is a recurring problem in the text, comment on one or two paragraphs in detail to help the writer revise his or her text.

For further information about topic sentences and paragrpah structure, see

• Structure within paragraphs.
• Why is this important?
• How is this related to your argument?
• Could you give any examples of this?
• Could you clarify this?

For some ideas on how to think about arguments in essays, see this video:

• Structuring an argument

Language: Word choice and grammar

Although it is usually not the peer reviewer's task to mark or correct language errors in the text, the following can help you as you review your peers' texts.

• Are any words overused or 'flat' in the sense that they do not add anything to the argument?
• If the writer is prone to repetitiveness, mark words that recur frequently
• Mark informal language
• What about punctuation?
• Are there any run-on sentences or sentence fragments?

Referencing

If the text draws on previous research, comment on the following:

• Are the sources that have been used relevant for the topic and for the assignment?
• Does the writer make a clear distinction between previous research and what is new (this is, can you distinguish the writer's ideas from what the writer has based on previous research?)
• Have sources been referred to according to instructions that the writer has received?

For information on how to use sources and why, see

• The function of references

Summing up: Strengths and weaknesses

To help the writer of the text you have reviewed, try to sum up your comments in a few sentences. Focus on the following:

• What are the strengths of the text you have read?
• What aspects of the writer's text need more work?

In the online book Writing in English at University: A Guide for Second Language Writers , pp. 27-29, you will find some further instructions and some tips on how to present your feedback.

Peer-reviewing guides for specific stages of the writing process

The following advice can be used as a starting point for reviews of work-in-progress texts. 

Remember that texts look different in different academic fields. The guidelines below focus on general stages of writing that many students come across while working on essays and degree projects.

Peer reviewing an essay/project proposal

Preliminary title    .

• Is the preliminary essay title informative?
• Is the title clear or potentially ambiguous (if the latter, discuss whether this is a good thing or not)

Research question and thesis statement

Note that the thesis statement will be preliminary at this early stage of the writing process.

• Is there a clearly articulated research question and a thesis statement or would you like the essay writer to clarify what will be investigated and what claims will be made?

Outline of essay structure    

• Discuss the proposed structure
• Does the proposed structure seem to be the best structure for the project, or would you like to propose another structure?

Preliminary sources    

• What kinds of sources has the writer located at this stage?
• Are there any kinds of sources that you would have expected, but that have not been listed?

Summing up and self-reflection

• Highlight something in the essay/project proposal that is good and something that may need to be clarified/developed.
• What have you learned by reading other students' essay/project proposals, and in what way has your own project developed from your discussions?

Peer reviewing an introduction section

Consider the questions below as your review your peers' texts.

Contents and structure

• Does the introduction present the topic of the essay/project in a clear way?
• Is there an identifiable research question and a thesis statement ?
• Does the introduction offer an outline of the essay (a blueprint)?
• Do you lack any crucial information in the introduction?

If the writer has been instructed to base their introduction on the CARS model , consider the following as well:

• Does your Introduction follow CARS?

Readability

• Sentence level: Are there sentences that are difficult to follow?
• Paragraph level: Are there any paragraphs that are difficult to understand? Is the ordering of paragraphs good? What about topic sentences and development within each paragraph ?
• Are there any words that are overused or ‘flat’ in the sense that they do not add anything to the argument?
• Are there terms that need to be introduced?
• What about punctuation ?
• Are there any sentences that need to be rephrased - any comma splices (run-on sentences) or sentence fragments ?
• Highlight something in the introduction that is good and something that may need to be clarified/developed.
• What have you learned and in what way has your own project developed from peer reviewing Introductions?

Peer reviewing paragraphs

For information about paragraph writing, see

Revise paragraphs for structure and argument

The following exercise works well as a peer-review exercise of some part of a text, and you can also use it to check your own work-in-progress texts.

• Read through the paragraph. Does it contain a clear topic sentence and some development in the form of supporting sentences? If not, how can the paragraph structure be strengthened?
• If any sources have been used, is it clear to the reader what parts of the paragraph refer to the source(s) and what parts are the writer’s own thoughts and words? If needed, how can the writer’s voice be strengthened and how can the reference(s) to other people’s thoughts be made more clear?

Revise a paragraph at sentence level

Read through the paragraph and then consider it from the following perspectives:

• Is the sentence structure awkward?
• Are you trying to say too much in one sentence?
• Are the sentences in your paragraph not in a logical order?
• Sentence structure variety: Are any successive sentences structured in exactly the same way (for instance are there several sentences in a row starting with subject + verb or with a prepositional phrase)? If that is the case, try to see if you can rephrase in order to create variety.
• Choice of words: Are there any words in the paragraph that might need revision (meaning / phrasing / form)? Is there unnecessary repetition?
• Style and language: Are there any language errors (subject-verb agreement, spelling, genitive case, capitalization, unclear use of pronouns)? What about style (contracted forms, informal words/phrases, jargon/pompous language)?

Peer reviewing work-in-progress texts

Peer reviewing is useful throughout the writing process. Use the following questions as starting points for peer discussions of work in progress. Remember that the texts you read are not finished texts; your task as a peer reviewer is to help the writer sharpen her or his argument and improve her or his text. Importantly, by reviewing other writers’ texts, you will train your own analytical abilities and you will encounter different ways of structuring a paper, of presenting facts and arguments, etc.

The following starting points are not detailed instructions but a list of issues that are important to consider throughout the writing process.

Big-picture concerns

• Argument: Is the argument clearly stated or does the writer need to provide more information or develop his/her argument in some direction?
• Overall level (is the overall structure clear to you as a reader?)
• Section level (do the sections follow in a logical sequence and are there informative headings and transitions between sections?)
• Paragraph level (what about topic sentences, for instance?)
• Evidence: Does the writer back up their claims?
• Will the writer need to find more evidence / sources to substantiate their claims?
• How are sources used?
• Does the writer follow the stipulated reference style?

Local concerns

• Does the writer use effective transitions between paragraphs or does the text consist of separate chunks of text? If the latter, highlight gaps where transitional devices are needed.
• Word choice (any terms than need to be explained or defined / any jargon or unnecessary words?)
• Spelling mistakes / grammatical mistakes?
• Punctuation issues?
• What is the greatest strength of the draft you have read?
• What does the writer need to work on?
• What have you learned and in what way has your own project developed from peer reviewing?

• Peer Review Checklist

Each essay is made up of multiple parts. In order to have a strong essay each part must be logical and effective. In many cases essays will be written with a strong thesis, but the rest of the paper will be lacking; making the paper ineffective. An essay is only as strong as its weakest point.

Using a checklist to complete your review will allow you to rate each of the parts in the paper according to their strength. There are many different peer review checklists, but the one below should be helpful for your assignment.

• Is the thesis clear?
• Does the author use his or her own ideas in the thesis and argument?
• Is the significance of the problem in the paper explained? Is the significance compelling?
• Are the ideas developed logically and thoroughly?
• Does the author use ethos effectively?
• Does the author use pathos effectively?
• Are different viewpoints acknowledged?
• Are objections effectively handled?
• Does the author give adequate explanations about sources used?
• Are the sources well-integrated into the paper, or do they seem to be added in just for the sake of adding sources?
• Is the word choice specific, concrete and interesting?
• Are the sentences clear?
• Is the overall organization of the argument effective?
• Are the transitions between paragraphs smooth?
• Are there any grammatical errors?

Based on the rubric found at: Grading Rubric Template (Word)

• Authored by : J. Indigo Eriksen. Provided by : Blue Ridge Community College. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Image of checklist. Authored by : Jurgen Appelo. Located at : https://flic.kr/p/hykfe7 . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Peer Review Checklist. Authored by : Robin Parent. Provided by : Utah State University English Department. Project : USU Open CourseWare Initiative. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Table of Contents

Instructor Resources (Access Requires Login)

• Overview of Instructor Resources

An Overview of the Writing Process

• Introduction to the Writing Process
• Introduction to Writing
• Your Role as a Learner
• What is an Essay?
• Reading to Write
• Defining the Writing Process
• Videos: Prewriting Techniques
• Thesis Statements
• Organizing an Essay
• Creating Paragraphs
• Conclusions
• Editing and Proofreading
• Matters of Grammar, Mechanics, and Style
• Comparative Chart of Writing Strategies

Using Sources

• Quoting, Paraphrasing, and Avoiding Plagiarism
• Formatting the Works Cited Page (MLA)
• Citing Paraphrases and Summaries (APA)
• APA Citation Style, 6th edition: General Style Guidelines

Definition Essay

• Definitional Argument Essay
• How to Write a Definition Essay
• Critical Thinking
• Video: Thesis Explained
• Effective Thesis Statements
• Student Sample: Definition Essay

Narrative Essay

• Introduction to Narrative Essay
• Student Sample: Narrative Essay
• "Shooting an Elephant" by George Orwell
• "Sixty-nine Cents" by Gary Shteyngart
• Video: The Danger of a Single Story
• How to Write an Annotation
• How to Write a Summary
• Writing for Success: Narration

Illustration/Example Essay

• Introduction to Illustration/Example Essay
• "She's Your Basic L.O.L. in N.A.D" by Perri Klass
• "April & Paris" by David Sedaris
• Writing for Success: Illustration/Example
• Student Sample: Illustration/Example Essay

Compare/Contrast Essay

• Introduction to Compare/Contrast Essay
• "Disability" by Nancy Mairs
• "Friending, Ancient or Otherwise" by Alex Wright
• "A South African Storm" by Allison Howard
• Writing for Success: Compare/Contrast
• Student Sample: Compare/Contrast Essay

Cause-and-Effect Essay

• Introduction to Cause-and-Effect Essay
• "Cultural Baggage" by Barbara Ehrenreich
• "Women in Science" by K.C. Cole
• Writing for Success: Cause and Effect
• Student Sample: Cause-and-Effect Essay

Argument Essay

• Introduction to Argument Essay
• Rogerian Argument
• "The Case Against Torture," by Alisa Soloman
• "The Case for Torture" by Michael Levin
• How to Write a Summary by Paraphrasing Source Material
• Writing for Success: Argument
• Student Sample: Argument Essay
• Grammar/Mechanics Mini-lessons
• Mini-lesson: Subjects and Verbs, Irregular Verbs, Subject Verb Agreement
• Mini-lesson: Sentence Types
• Mini-lesson: Fragments I
• Mini-lesson: Run-ons and Comma Splices I
• Mini-lesson: Comma Usage
• Mini-lesson: Parallelism
• Mini-lesson: The Apostrophe
• Mini-lesson: Capital Letters
• Grammar Practice - Interactive Quizzes
• De Copia - Demonstration of the Variety of Language
• Style Exercise: Voice

• Have your assignments done by seasoned writers. 24/7
• Contact us:
• +1 (213) 221-0069
• [email protected]

How to Write a Peer Review Essay: Guidelines for Students

Writing a Peer Review Essay

Peer review, an essential component of the academic and scientific world, is a structured process where scholars evaluate and offer feedback on each other’s work. It ensures quality, accuracy, and credibility in research and written materials.

Let’s explore the art of crafting a peer review essay, providing insights into the best practices to offer constructive criticism and foster academic growth.

The Process of Peer Review

1. prepare for peer review.

Peer review is a crucial step in the academic and scientific community that ensures the quality and credibility of research and written work.

To prepare effectively for peer review , choose peer reviewers who have expertise in the subject matter and are familiar with the standards and expectations of the field.

Their insights will be more valuable and relevant.

Establish clear guidelines and expectations for peer reviewers.

Define the review’s focus, whether content, structure, or grammar, and provide a timeline for feedback. This clarity will lead to more meaningful critiques.

2. Conduct the Review

The review process begins after selecting your peer reviewers and setting the expectations.

Assess the overall structure of the paper. Ensure the introduction provides a clear thesis statement and the body paragraphs follow a logical sequence. Look for appropriate transitions between sections and a well-organized conclusion.

Examine the clarity of the writing. Check for concise and compelling language, appropriate sentence and paragraph lengths, and coherent connections between ideas.

Evaluate the use of evidence and examples to support the arguments. Verify the credibility of sources and the relevance of the information presented. Ensure that citations and references follow the appropriate style guide.

3. Provide Constructive Feedback

Effective feedback should balance positive and critical comments to foster growth and motivation.

Start by highlighting what the individual did well, acknowledging their strengths and achievements.

Be specific, offering examples to make your praise meaningful. Then, gently introduce areas for improvement or concerns, framing them as opportunities for growth.

Avoid using overly negative language and focus on actionable suggestions for improvement. Maintaining a respectful and empathetic tone ensures the recipient doesn’t feel demotivated or attacked.

Overall, constructive feedback should inspire confidence and provide a clear path for advancement, encouraging individuals to take positive steps toward self-improvement.

4. Write the Draft Review

• Start with a salutation and address the reviewed individual or entity.
• Begin by briefly summarizing the purpose of the review and the subject matter under evaluation.
• Provide specific positive feedback or commendations, highlighting achievements and strengths.
• Gently introduce areas for improvement or concerns, offering constructive criticism with clarity and tact.
• Offer suggestions or actionable recommendations for addressing the identified issues.
• Summarize the key points discussed in the review.
• Express gratitude and positivity, encouraging the recipient to use the feedback for growth and improvement.
• Sign off with a polite closing.

5. Polish and Proofread

Polishing and proofreading are crucial steps in refining written work. Start by reading your text slowly and attentively, checking for grammatical and spelling errors.

Pay close attention to punctuation and sentence structure. Ensure that your ideas flow logically and cohesively with clear paragraph transitions.

Look for consistency in style and formatting. Reading your work aloud is also helpful in catching awkward phrasing or inconsistencies.

Take a break before proofreading to see the text with fresh eyes. Additionally, consider asking someone else to review your work, as a new perspective can uncover issues you have missed. These steps will enhance the overall quality of your writing.

Benefits of Peer Review in Academic Writing

Peer review is a fundamental component of academic writing, offering a range of benefits that contribute to the growth and development of scholars and their work.

Here are three key advantages of peer review in academic writing:

Improving Writing Skills

Peer review provides an invaluable opportunity for writers to receive feedback on their work from their peers, allowing them to identify areas for improvement in their writing.

Reviewers can point out clarity, coherence, grammar, and style issues, helping authors refine their writing skills.

Through learning from peers’ feedback, writers can address weaknesses and strengthen their ability to convey complex ideas effectively. This iterative process of revision and critique leads to higher-quality academic writing.

Enhancing Critical Thinking

Engaging in peer review encourages scholars to think critically about their work as well as the work of their peers.

Reviewers must assess the validity of the author’s arguments, the strength of evidence, and the overall coherence of the paper.

Mostly, this process sharpens critical thinking skills, necessitating the ability to analyze and evaluate the content, identify logical fallacies, and propose solutions or improvements.

Authors and reviewers enhance their ability to engage in rigorous, evidence-based academic discourse by participating in this evaluative process.

Fostering Collaboration and Community

Peer review promotes a sense of collaboration and community within the academic world. It encourages scholars to engage with one another’s work, share insights, and build upon existing knowledge.

Reviewers and authors form a symbiotic relationship where both parties benefit from exchanging ideas.

This sense of community extends beyond the review process and can lead to collaborations on research projects, co-authored papers, and ongoing dialogue within the academic field.

It also instills a culture of constructive critique and mutual support, which is vital for maintaining the integrity and quality of academic research.

Tips and Best Practices in Peer Review

1. anonymity vs. transparency in peer review.

Anonymity can promote honest feedback, but transparency builds trust. Some journals use a hybrid approach, allowing authors to choose the review model.

Regardless of the model, professionalism and constructive criticism should always be maintained.

2. Ethical Considerations in Peer Review

Confidentiality is crucial; don’t share or discuss manuscripts without permission. Declare any potential conflicts of interest. Avoid personal bias or discriminatory comments.

3. Being Too Critical

Balance criticism with positive feedback. Focus on improving the work, not tearing it down.

4. Missing the Big Picture

Look for overarching themes, alignment with the field, and the paper’s contribution. Stay calm in minor details at the expense of the paper’s main ideas.

5. Strategies for Revising Based on Feedback

Take time to digest feedback and avoid an immediate emotional reaction. Prioritize feedback points and address them systematically. Seek clarification if feedback is unclear.

6. Knowing When to Accept or Reject Suggestions

Assess feedback against your paper’s goals and the expertise of the reviewer. Use your judgment; not all feedback needs to be implemented.

Peer Review in Different Disciplines

Researchers submit their work to scientific journals, and experts in the field assess its methodology, findings, and significance.

Mostly, this helps filter out flawed or irrelevant research, ensuring only credible, accurate, and novel contributions are published.

The process often follows a double-blind model, where both author and reviewer identities are concealed.

Peer review in the humanities and social sciences plays a crucial role in evaluating the quality and relevance of academic work.

Scholars submit their manuscripts, which undergo review by peers with expertise in the subject area.

The focus is on assessing the paper’s argument, methodology, and contribution to existing knowledge.

Unlike the anonymous nature of scientific research review, the humanities and social sciences often in single-masked blind or open peer review, where the reviewers’ identities are known to the authors.

Writing a peer review essay is a valuable skill that fosters academic growth and the advancement of knowledge.

Additionally, this process, characterized by objectivity, constructive feedback, and ethical considerations, ensures the quality and credibility of academic work.

By critically evaluating fellow scholars’ contributions only help them improve their writing and rese and enhance our own abilities in critical thinking and analysis.

Josh Jasen or JJ as we fondly call him, is a senior academic editor at Grade Bees in charge of the writing department. When not managing complex essays and academic writing tasks, Josh is busy advising students on how to pass assignments. In his spare time, he loves playing football or walking with his dog around the park.

Related posts

Reuse Papers & Avoid Self-plagiarism

How to Reuse Papers & Avoid Self-plagiarism when Retaking Class

writing animal testing essay

Writing Animal Testing Argumentative Essay & Thesis Statement

Paraphrasing Dos & Don'ts

Is using a Paraphrasing Tool Cheating? Paraphrasing Dos & Don’ts

Engaging in Peer Review

There are times when we write in solitary and intend to keep our words private. However, in many cases, we use writing as a way of communicating. We send messages, present and explain ideas, share information, and make arguments. One way to improve the effectiveness of this written communication is through peer-review.

What is Peer-Review?

In the most general of terms, peer-review is the act of having another writer read what you have written and respond in terms of its effectiveness. This reader attempts to identify the writing's strengths and weaknesses, and then suggests strategies for revising it. The hope is that not only will the specific piece of writing be improved, but that future writing attempts will also be more successful. Peer-review happens with all types of writing, at any stage of the process, and with all levels of writers.

Sometimes peer-review is called a writing workshop.

What is a Writing Workshop?

Peer-review sessions are sometimes called writing workshops. For example, students in a writing class might bring a draft of some writing that they are working on to share with either a single classmate or a group, bringing as many copies of the draft as they will need. There is usually a worksheet to fill out or a set questions for each peer-review reader to answer about the piece of writing. The writer might also request that their readers pay special attention to places where he or she would like specific help. An entire class can get together after reading and responding to discuss the writing as a group, or a single writer and reader can privately discuss the response, or the response can be written and shared in that way only.

Whether peer-review happens in a classroom setting or not, there are some common guidelines to follow.

Common Guidelines for Peer-Review

While peer-review is used in multiple contexts, there are some common guidelines to follow in any peer-review situation.

If You are the Writer

If you are the writer, think of peer-review as a way to test how well your writing is working. Keep an open mind and be prepared for criticism. Even the best writers have room for improvement. Even so, it is still up to you whether or not to take the peer-review reader's advice. If more than one person reads for you, you might receive conflicting responses, but don't panic. Consider each response and decide for yourself if you should make changes and what those changes will be. Not all the advice you get will be good, but learning to make revision choices based on the response is part of becoming a better writer.

If You are the Reader

As a peer-review reader, you will have an opportunity to practice your critical reading skills while at the same time helping the writer improve their writing skills. Specifically, you will want to do as follows:

Read the draft through once

Start by reading the draft through once, beginning to end, to get a general sense of the essay as a whole. Don't write on the draft yet. Use a piece of scratch paper to make notes if needed.

Write a summary

After an initial reading, it is sometimes helpful to write a short summary. A well written essay should be easy to summarize, so if writing a summary is difficult, try to determine why and share that with the writer. Also, if your understanding of the writer's main idea(s) turns out to be different from what the writer intended, that will be a place they can focus their revision efforts.

Focus on large issues

Focus your review on the larger writing issues. For example, the misplacement of a few commas is less important than the reader's ability to understand the main point of the essay. And yet, if you do notice a recurring problem with grammar or spelling, especially to the extent that it interferes with your ability to follow the essay, make sure to mention it.

Be constructive

Be constructive with your criticisms. A comment such as "This paragraph was boring" isn't helpful. Remember, this writer is your peer, so treat him/her with the respect and care that they deserve. Explain your responses. "I liked this part" or "This section doesn't work" isn't enough. Keep in mind that you are trying to help the writer revise, so give him/her enough information to be able to understand your responses. Point to specific places that show what you mean. As much as possible, don't criticize something without also giving the writer some suggestion for a possible solution. Be specific and helpful.

Be positive

Don't focus only on the things that aren't working, but also point out the things that are.

With these common guidelines in mind, here are some specific questions that are useful when doing peer-review.

Questions to Use

When doing peer-review, there are different ways to focus a response. You can use questions that are about the qualities of an essay or the different parts of an essay.

Questions to Ask about the Qualities of an Essay

When doing a peer-review response to a piece of writing, one way to focus it is by answering a set of questions about the qualities of an essay. Such qualities would be:

Organization

• Is there a clearly stated purpose/objective?
• Are there effective transitions?
• Are the introduction and conclusion focused on the main point of the essay?
• As a reader, can you easily follow the writer's flow of ideas?
• Is each paragraph focused on a single idea?
• At any point in the essay, do you feel lost or confused?
• Do any of the ideas/paragraphs seem out of order, too early or too late to be as effective as they could?

Development and Support

• Is each main point/idea made by the writer clearly developed and explained?
• Is the support/evidence for each point/idea persuasive and appropriate?
• Is the connection between the support/evidence, main point/idea, and the overall point of the essay made clear?
• Is all evidence adequately cited?
• Are the topic and tone of the essay appropriate for the audience?
• Are the sentences and word choices varied?

Grammar and Mechanics

• Does the writer use proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling?
• Are there any issues with any of these elements that make the writing unreadable or confusing?

Revision Strategy Suggestions

• What are two or three main revision suggestions that you have for the writer?

Questions to Ask about the Parts of an Essay

When doing a peer-review response to a piece of writing, one way to focus it is by answering a set of questions about the parts of an essay. Such parts would be:

Introduction

• Is there an introduction?
• Is it effective?
• Is it concise?
• Is it interesting?
• Does the introduction give the reader a sense of the essay's objective and entice the reader to read on?
• Does it meet the objective stated in the introduction?
• Does it stay focused on this objective or are there places it strays?
• Is it organized logically?
• Is each idea thoroughly explained and supported with good evidence?
• Are there transitions and are they effective?
• Is there a conclusion?
• Does it work?

Peer-Review Online

Peer-review doesn't happen only in classrooms or in face-to-face situations. A writer can share a text with peer-review readers in the context of a Web classroom. In this context, the writer's text and the reader's response are shared electronically using file-sharing, e-mail attachments, or discussion forums/message boards.

When responding to a document in these ways, the specific method changes because the reader can't write directly on the document like they would if it were a paper copy. It is even more important in this context to make comments and suggestions clear by thoroughly explaining and citing specific examples from the text.

When working with an electronic version of a text, such as an e-mail attachment, the reader can open the document or copy/paste the text in Microsoft Word, or other word-processing software. In this way, the reader can add his or her comments, save and then send the revised document back to the writer, either through e-mail, file sharing, or posting in a discussion forum.

The reader's overall comments can be added either before or after the writer's section of text. If all the comments will be included at the end of the original text, it is still a good idea to make a note in the beginning directing the writer's attention to the end of the document. Specific comments can be inserted into appropriate places in the document, made clear by using all capital letters enclosed with parenthesis. Some word-processing software also has a highlighting feature that might be helpful.

Benefits of Peer Review

Peer-review has a reflexive benefit. Both the writer and the peer-review reader have something to gain. The writer profits from the feedback they get. In the act of reviewing, the peer-review reader further develops his/her own revision skills. Critically reading the work of another writer enables a reader to become more able to identify, diagnose, and solve some of their own writing issues.

Peer Review Worksheets

Here are a few worksheets that you can print out and use for a peer-review session.

Parts of an Essay

• My audience is:
• My purpose is:
• The main point I want to make in this text is:
• One or two things that I would appreciate your comments on are:
• After reading through the draft one time, write a summary of the text. Do you agree with the writer's assessment of the text's main idea?
• In the following sections, answer the questions that would be most helpful to the writer or that seem to address the most relevant revision concerns. Refer to specific places in their text, citing examples of what you mean. Use a separate piece of paper for your responses and comments. Also, write comments directly on the writer's draft where needed.
• Is it effective? Concise? Interesting?
• Is there a conclusion? Does it work?

Finally, what are two or three revision suggestions you have for the writer?

Qualities of an Essay

• After reading through the draft one time, write a summary of the text.
• In the following sections, answer the questions that would be most helpful to the writer or that seem to address the most relevant revision concerns. Use a separate piece of paper for your responses and comments. Also, write comments directly on the writer's draft where needed.
• Is the connection between the support/evidence, main point/idea, and the overall point of the essay made clear?Is all evidence adequately cited?

Salahub, Jill . (2007). Peer Review. Writing@CSU . Colorado State University. https://writing.colostate.edu/guides/guide.cfm?guideid=43

• Request a Consultation
• Workshops and Virtual Conversations
• Technical Support
• Course Design and Preparation
• Observation & Feedback

Teaching Resources

Using Peer Review to Help Students Improve Their Writing

Resource overview.

Tips for using peer review to help students improve their writing.

Instructors teaching a writing-intensive course, or any course that requires students to produce a substantial amount of writing, should consider creating opportunities for students to read and respond to one another’s writing. Such opportunities to engage in “peer review,” when well planned, can help students improve their reading and writing skills and learn how to collaborate effectively.

More specifically, participating in peer review can help students:

• Learn how to read carefully, with attention to the details of a piece of writing (whether their own or another writer’s);
• Learn how to strengthen their writing by taking into account the responses of actual and anticipated readers;
• Make the transition from writing primarily for themselves or for an instructor to writing for a broader audience–a key transition for students as they learn to write university-level papers and as they prepare for post-graduate work;
• Learn how to formulate and communicate constructive feedback on a peer’s work;
• Learn how to gather and respond to feedback on their own work.

A common misstep that many instructors make in approaching peer review is to assume that students already have the skills described above and that incorporating peer review simply amounts to asking students to apply these skills to the tasks of reading and responding to one another’s writing. Instead, instructors should approach peer review as an opportunity to teach these skills and for students to practice them.

For tips on how to organize and run peer review in your course, see “ Planning and Guiding In-Class Peer Review .”

How Do Students Respond?

Many instructors who have incorporated peer review into their courses report less than satisfying results. In fact, it is quite common to find that, when asked to participate in peer review, students rush through the peer-review process and offer their peers only vaguely positive comments, such as “I liked your paper,” or “Good job,” or “Good paper, but a few parts need more work.” Furthermore, many students seem to ignore peer-reviewers’ comments on their writing.

There are several possible reasons behind such responses:

1. Many students feel uncomfortable with the task of having to pronounce a judgment on their peers’ writing .  This discomfort may be the result of their maturity level, their desire not to hurt a peer’s feelings (perhaps made more acute by the fact that they are anxious about having their peers read and judge their own writing), or simply their inexperience with providing constructive criticism on a peer’s work. A vaguely positive response allows them to avoid a socially uncomfortable situation and to create an environment of mutual support (Nilson 2003).

2. If students are not given clear guidance from their instructors, they may not know how to comment on one another’s writing in a specific and constructive way. In addition, it should be noted that students may not understand how to comment on their peers’ writing because over the years they have not received helpful feedback from instructors who have graded their papers.

3. Some instructors ask their students to evaluate their peers’ writing using the same criteria the instructor uses when grading papers (e.g., quality of thesis, adequacy of support, coherence, etc.).  Undergraduate students often have an inadequate understanding of these criteria, and as a result, they either ignore or inappropriately apply such criteria during peer-review sessions (Nilson 2003).

4. Many students do not perceive feedback from peers as relevant to the process of writing a paper for a course.  Especially at the beginning of their undergraduate work, students are likely to assume that it is only the instructor’s feedback that “counts.”

5. Even when they take seriously feedback provided by their peers, students often do not know how to incorporate that feedback when they revise their papers.

Key Strategies

1. Identify and teach the skills required for peer review.  As you are planning your course, make a list of the skills that students should be learning and putting into practice when participating in peer review. These might include reading skills (discerning a writer’s main point, locating key points of support or relevant data, etc.), writing skills (writing clear, specific comments and questions), and collaboration skills (phrasing critiques in a descriptive, constructive way). Articulating what you see as the core skills involved in peer review will help you develop a coherent plan for integrating peer review into your course and will make more clear the specific instructions your students will need as they learn how to review a peer’s paper and how to use the comments they receive during peer review.

2. Teach peer review as an essential part of the writing process.  Emphasize to students that peer review is not just a course requirement: it is an essential part of the writing process that all successful writers engage in at some point. Your students may not realize the extent to which scholars and other professionals practice peer review as an integral part of producing effective writing in their fields. Consider explaining why, as a scholar, you find peer review helpful-even when you do not agree with or appreciate every comment made by a peer- reviewer. For example, you might tell them about a specific instance when a reader’s comments helped you to clarify and strengthen your writing.

Remind students that the process of producing academic and professional writing generally involves three steps: drafting, revising, and editing. Peer review is often most helpful to student writers when it is utilized between the drafting and revision stages, or after each student has produced a complete draft, but while there is still time to make substantial changes. A writer might learn from peer-reviewers, for example, that a paper’s introduction is its strongest point, or that the paper’s main point or thesis is not yet clear, or that there are “gaps” in the logic or the support that detract from the paper’s effectiveness, or that a paper’s conclusion presents an interesting idea that leaves the reader with unanswered questions. The purpose of peer review as a prelude to revision is to help the writer determine which parts of the paper are effective as is, and which are unclear, incomplete, or unconvincing.

3. Describe peer review as an opportunity for students to learn how to write for an audience.  Undergraduate students often do not perceive how completing academic writing assignments will prepare them for work in the professional world. One way to help them make this connection is to point out a fact that many instructors take for granted but that undergraduates need to be reminded of: no matter what university students end up doing after graduation, the quality of their ideas and their work will be judged, in a large measure, by how well they can communicate in writing to diverse audiences. Participating in peer review can help them learn to shape their written language as a medium of communication with readers. For example, seeking out peer feedback can help one student construct a convincing argument by anticipating and answering counter-arguments that his readers might pose, while peer review can help another student determine how to explain the significance of her research to readers who are not experts in her field.

4. Define the role of the peer-reviewer as that of a reader, not an evaluator.  Develop guidelines for peer-reviewers that ask them to complete specific tasks: examples include indicating the strongest part of a paper; identifying or rephrasing the thesis; listing the major points of support or evidence; and indicating sentences or paragraphs that seem out of order, incompletely explained, or otherwise in need of revision. Some of these tasks are descriptive and others are evaluative. However, those that are evaluative should put the emphasis on the reader’s impressions and responses and should not require the peer-reviewer to pronounce a judgment on the paper as a whole (Nilson 2003). This approach should help you develop specific instructions to students that will clarify how they should respond to one another’s writing and should also help you pare down your expectations of what students can realistically accomplish during in-class peer-review sessions. Defining the role of the peer-reviewer as a reader will also help you underscore the fact that it is up to the writer to decide whether and how to make changes to the paper through revision. In other words, the writer should think about all of the reviewers’ comments, but may decide to ignore some of the comments and to make changes in response to others.

Increasing Students’ Sense of Investment in Communicating and Collaborating Effectively

Even though students as peer-reviewers should not be asked to use the same criteria the instructor uses when grading papers, by participating in peer review they should gain a better understanding of those criteria. After all, some of the most common criteria for determining the effectiveness of writing refer to the effects of a piece of writing on readers: for example, a sentence can be called “clear” when readers can discern its meaning; a description of research methods can be called “coherent” and “complete” when readers understand the process well enough to replicate it themselves; an argumentative essay can be called “convincing” when it conveys a position that readers find reasonable and compelling.

When students engage fully in the peer-review process, they should not only better comprehend the criteria used to determine whether a paper is well written. They should also start to see themselves as writers and readers who have a stake in learning to recognize and to produce effective writing–as academic peers who learn more when they learn to communicate more effectively with one another.

Bean, John C. (2001). Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gottschalk, Katherine and Keith Hjortshoj (2004). “What Can You Do with Student Writing?” In The Elements of Teaching Writing: A Resource for Instructors in All Disciplines. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Millis, Barbara J. (2002). “Enhancing Learning-and More! Through Collaborative Learning. IDEA Paper 38. The IDEA Center.  http://www.theideacenter.org/sites/default/files/Idea_Paper_38.pdf

Nilson, Linda. (2003). “Improving Student Peer Feedback.” College Teaching, 51 (1), p. 34-38.

Have suggestions?

If you have suggestions of resources we might add to these pages, please contact us:

[email protected] (314) 935-6810 Mon - Fri, 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

• Writing Center
• Current Students
• Online Only Students
• Faculty & Staff
• Parents & Family
• Alumni & Friends
• Community & Business
• Student Life
• Video Introduction
• Become a Writing Assistant
• All Writers
• Graduate Students
• ELL Students
• Campus and Community
• Testimonials
• Encouraging Writing Center Use
• Incentives and Requirements
• Open Educational Resources
• How We Help
• Get to Know Us
• Conversation Partners Program
• Workshop Series
• Professors Talk Writing
• Computer Lab
• Starting a Writing Center
• A Note to Instructors
• Annotated Bibliography
• Literature Review
• Research Proposal
• Argument Essay
• Rhetorical Analysis

How to Write Meaningful Peer Response Praise

Praise is an important element of peer and teacher feedback—it can, to quote Donald Daiker, “lift the hearts, as well as the pens” of student authors—but substantive praise is one of the most challenging modes of feedback to compose (112). How can writing instructors move student responders beyond standard comments such as “Great paper!” or “I liked it” or “Good details”? This chapter is a guide for students in composition classes, and aims to help them understand the importance of giving and receiving detailed, conversational praise; it presents scenarios for conceptualizing how to write praise, provides sample student writing excerpts that invite students to practice writing praise, offers and analyzes examples of different types of student-authored praise comments, and provides an array of approaches to writing praise comments.

In some first year writing classes, peer feedback days parallel the char- acters’ journey into the Appalachian caves in Neil Marshall’s horror film The Descent .* A group of female friends goes on an annual thrill-seeking adventure, climbing their way through a complex, uncharted cave, only to encounter some ferocious monsters, as well as their own inner demons. Vivian Sobchack characterizes the chaos depicted in the film this way: “Eventually trapped within the cave system by a rock slide, the six women become separated, each person or little group fitfully lit through different means to allow us to see their struggles in stroboscopic glimpses—and then often to wish we hadn’t” (41).

Comparing the film to a first year writing class, the “descent” into peer feedback can sometimes leave all parties lost and helpless: we teachers bemoan the ragged and inconsistent quality of some peer comments, and you, who often complain only to us when your peers do a slack job writing comments on your work. Too often, all of us “wish we hadn’t” wasted time at all doing peer response.

A few years ago, I had a student (we’ll call him Ray) whose peer response routine involved shuffling through his peers’ papers—which were to be responded to as homework—and writing generic comments quickly at the start of class. “Good opening,” he would write, then next to each paragraph, “Give examples,” and at the bottom, “I like the ending, but maybe expand.” I began to realize all his comments were the same, and a student who was in his group confirmed that he never read his partners’ essays before writing feedback.

Now, that’s a descent .

Why go into the cave at all, we might ask, especially if even one of your peers approaches the task with such disregard? Or, what about the fact that some writers ignore your feedback anyway, preferring to only pay attention to the instructor’s comments, because “they are the one giving the grade”? Not too long ago, Fred, a student taking his second composition course with me, told his group as he handed his peer feedback to them: “You can ignore these; I’m just trying to get plusses on my feedback.” (I assign grades of Plus, Check, or Check Minus on feedback, with some brief commentary about how responders could improve next time.) I was struck by Fred’s admission, and his willingness to participate in writing peer responses that he didn’t fully stand behind.

The psychology going on in peer groups reminds me of some of the conclusions I drew working on my dissertation on peer response while a graduate student at Florida State University. I collected and studied my students’ peer feedback and their thoughts about the feedback they gave/ received. I noticed that:

• Students placed greater value in professors’ feedback vs. peers’, usually ignoring peer responses unless they were forced to use them in revisions;
• Students often felt poorly qualified to write meaningful responses, since they saw themselves as merely adequate, “not good enough to tell someone else how to write;”
• Students were often reluctant to write questions, which they viewed as critical, because they did not want to be perceived as “judging” their peers’ experiences, thoughts, or feelings;

Students would often judge their peers’ writing based on what they thought a teacher would want, rather than their own criteria for what makes writing good; and

Students initially tended to comment on things that were easier to “fix” like grammar or spelling mistakes, and paragraph size.

You may see yourself in one or more of these attitudes, and you may have received or given feedback similarly to Ray or Fred. Such attitudes and approaches are natural: given how sensitive the act of sharing an essay can be, these attitudes and others create a complex dynamic in small groups, leading some of us to prefer to avoid peer feedback, especially if we have not established trust with our group. As a result of these ways of thinking, some writers become frustrated working in small groups, because they don’t put much faith in the process or in the weak comments they anticipate receiving.

As a way of free falling right into this metaphorical dark cave, let’s jumpstart your class discussion of peer response strategies. I recognize that there are additional types of feedback, such as asking questions, giving advice, and editing or correcting errors, but this essay is going to focus on one important type of feedback.

How to Write Meaningful Praise

Think of a favorite food (I’m sure you have many, but pick one for now.). Why do you like it? What can you say about that food that conveys why that food is enjoyable to you? It is not enough, really, to say that you like it “because it tastes good.” In this sense, good just becomes an empty word that doesn’t really say anything.

I like pepperoni pizza. My two favorite places are Angelone’s in Port- land, Maine, and Burke Street Pizza in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. What I really like is how, on theirs, the slices of pepperoni curl up just a little and get crispy around the edges, leaving a tiny bit of oil residue in- side. I also like how their pepperoni slices can easily be bitten into, rather than the big round slabs of pepperoni that some pizzerias use, which sort of slide off whole when you chomp into them, pulling along large segments of cheese. Sure, there are plenty of places that offer adequate pizza, but only rare places like these make pepperoni pizzas that I really like.

It is easy (and somewhat distracting!) to come up with details to de- scribe the foods we like; but, what about writing we like? Why do we like it? What does it mean to “like” an opening sentence, an image, an insight? Since you don’t want to be that student who just jots generic comments down the margins in a hurry, like Ray made a habit of doing, I encourage your class, before workshops even begin, to do an inventory of what makes you like (or dislike) certain features of writing. Not just what makes writing “good,” but what makes writing really work for us, as individual readers.

Are you a reader who likes detail in the form of facts and data—such as a newspaper article about Dustin Pedroia’s injury, one that provides statistics showing how well the Red Sox play when he has been in the line-up compared to their win-loss record without him? Or are you a reader who likes to “discern” by reading in between the lines what an author might mean? Do you like to learn about new things, places, people, ideas, when you read, or do you prefer to read about that which is familiar? Do you like writing that makes you feel sadness or frustration, or do you prefer to read stories that look on the brighter side? It is good to know these things about yourself, as you approach any new text.

Now consider this: Is it even possible to like the writing that you and your peers have to do for classes? Not always. But, I would argue that you don’t have to like the academic writing your peers share with you (i.e., enjoy it the way I enjoy most any article about the Boston Red Sox) in order to praise what’s working for you as a reader.

Meaningful praise, then, is feedback that recognizes something that is working for you as a reader, that gives you an opportunity to have a dialogue with the author, and that expresses some sort of appreciation for the work the writer has done, or for the writer herself.

I remember when my student who wrote about his football experiences included a detail about coaches making him run up and down the bleachers with garbage bags wrapped tightly around his torso so he could get “in condition” for the upcoming game (I believe this is not allowed anymore). He did not use extensive description or need to. Through one well-chosen detail, he was able to illustrate what the players had to do and reveal some of the complexities of being a competitive athlete: his detail allowed the reader to imagine the exhaustion, and to question the methods the coaches used to get some players into shape. Praising the student’s use of detail had to involve more than just telling him “nice detail.” It meant explaining, as succinctly as I could fit in the margin, what made it work, for me as one reader: “A nice detail. You’ve already got me appreciating the physical and emotional stress an elite athlete experiences. It must have been draining. How do you feel now about the coaches’ methods?” Here is an alternative praise comment, from a peer who likes the passage because he can relate to it: “Good description. Our coaches used to do this too. I like how you make people who don’t know what it’s like understand what we go through to compete.”

Practice Session 1

Let’s practice writing praise in response to an actual sample of student writing, the beginning of a personal exploration by Lili Velez. As you read the following excerpt, consider what praise you could write:

Examinations Outside the Classroom

We panic, we pack, we get to college, and then panic again, moaning, “I wish I had known I’d need this!” “This” could be any- thing from that extra pillow to the answers to a high school test on Hamlet , or it might be something more abstract, like how to deal with issues we never thought we would encounter outside a classroom. For example, when a philosophy professor asks us to examine what is evil and what is good, that’s okay; we’re getting graded on it. But do we ask such questions in the cafeteria? In the dormitory? At home? Who needs to ponder academic questions outside of class? It’s an invasion of our private lives. I thought so until a question followed me home and shook up my ideas on what belonged in the classroom and what I should never be without.

It was English 102, in small group discussion of my friend Donna’s paper, which was about whether fighting was a natural tendency, as it is in other animals that live in groups. (337)

It would be easy enough to write next to Lili’s first paragraph “good opening.” It would be simple enough to say that the opening is “descriptive” or “captivating.” But, if you like the opening of this essay, what really causes your positive reaction? Even just as a draft, why does this opening work for you, as a reader? Take a moment to write two or three sentences describing what it is you like about Lili’s writing so far, and imagine you are writing these words directly to her in a conversation.

Is it the word choice? The arrangement of sentences? Her use of detail (the pillow, Hamlet )? Does it have something to do with the voice or tone? The way she uses questions? It could be any or all of these things, or something else altogether. I liked the commas and repetition in the first sentence, which create a sense of tension in the writing. (I am the kind of reader who likes some tension in what I read.) I also liked the feeling of momentum. Even just a little bit into the second paragraph, I am curious to hear more about what happened in her small group and the discussion about Donna’s paper. As Keith Hjortshoj describes in The Transition to College Writing :

Beginnings are points of departure, when readers expect to learn what this writing is about and the general direction it will take. Even if these beginnings do not explicitly map the routes the writing will travel, they tell us where this journey will start, point us in a certain direction, and provide some bearings for the next move. (115)

Lili is trying to do just that: engage the reader, point us in a specific direction, and pose a central question that will guide the exploration forward.

Elaine Mamon, Lili’s instructor in the class, praised Lili for her courage to tackle a challenging topic and for making the reader “feel like getting into the conversation” (Velez 340).

Practice Session 2

When writing meaningful praise, you might consider using a technique associated with rhetorician Donald Murray, who was known for writing his praise to students using this format: “I like the way you…” (qtd. in Daiker 111). By including some praise written this way, you help writers enhance their audience awareness. As you read the following excerpt, the opening of a personal essay my student Nick wrote about declining wildlife in Pennsylvania, write 2–3 praise comments in Murray’s “I like the way you…” format:

Where the Wild Things Roamed

And there we found ourselves, on my hike in the woods with my dog Loki, his eyes fixed upon a herd of deer who stared back at him with the same intense interest. You could see it stir within them, the ancient war between their kind, Loki likely thinking “Must chase! Must bite!” though he probably does not know why, and the deer screaming in their minds, “The wolf! The wolf!” despite the ironic fact that these deer have never seen a wolf. For there are no wolves in these woods, nor in all of Pennsylvania. Gone are the days of wolves and mountain lions prowling through these woods giving the deer something to truly fear rather than this would-be predator at the end of my leash.

And here I am looking at these deer and wondering, “How are you all that’s left?” (Brewster 1)

After completing your praise comments, I recommend talking with others in class about what you praised, how you worded each comment, and what it was like writing responses this way.

Donald Daiker believes that writers become less apprehensive when they “experience success” and that “genuine praise can lift the hearts, and the pens, of the writers who sit in our classrooms” (106, 112). After receiving fifteen sets of feedback from his classmates throughout the semester, which all had to include several praise comments, Nick explained his emerging confidence: “I ended up deciding to let my creativity loose despite how un- comfortable it made me. I ended up finding myself greatly enjoying some of my later works. The more confident I became in my writings the more I experimented with my creativity.” In one of his final peer comments on a classmate’s meta-essay, Nick acknowledges the role positive peer feedback had played in their mutual development: “Great point and I agree. We helped one another write about more personal feelings and dilemmas.”

Examples of Peer Response Praise

Let’s look at several other praise comments Nick writes on his classmates’ essays. For context, most of the papers students wrote in this class revolved around animals, or writing, and sometimes both:

• Repeating the questions was an effective follow-up to your intro sentence
• Nice allusion. Very creative way of describing your writings.
• Notice how Nick refers to specific choices the writer had made. Here are some comments Nick writes on Carolyn’s essay about six cats she has owned throughout her life. Sometimes, Nick praises Carolyn for the choices she makes as a writer, and sometimes he praises her personally, but all of them are conversational:
• Good details that add to each cat’s character
• Interesting how everyone ended up getting their “own” cat
• The font change is a good touch [Carolyn had switched fonts for a passage that recreated a letter she would have written as a child to her cat who had passed away]
• Recognizing how you’ve changed over time and looking back on your younger self is such a human thing to do and extremely relatable. I think we’ve all been there.
• Great imagery and comical, picturing this level of organization from a child
• LOL! Nice touch and some comic relief after the passing of Chester

Occasionally, Nick writes what Rick Straub and Ronald Lunsford refer to as combination comments, wherein a praise comment is joined with a question or tentative advice. For example, in response to Jordan’s essay about his dog Quinn, Nick writes:

• Good descriptions [of Quinn]. Maybe could add more? Hair type, face, size?

On Rose’s essay, which analyzes the effects of a social media influencer who hoards animals (particularly rats and reptiles), Nick combines praise, analysis, and a rhetorical question:

• Good point. It does certainly appear we care about some animals more than others. Would people care more if it was a room full of puppies, for example?

Notice how in responding to Rose’s argument, Nick has joined the conversation as a reader. The best peer feedback does not just inflate the writer’s ego but keeps the conversation about the writing, and about the topic, moving forward. The praise you receive can help you understand what goes on in your readers’ minds, and better shape your writing for an audience.

In his article “Responding—Really Responding—To Other Students’ Writing,” Straub encourages you to “Challenge yourself to write as many praise comments as criticisms. When you praise, praise well. Sincerity and specificity are everything when it comes to a compliment” (192). Nick includes a good deal of praise in his sets of feedback, and his comments are specific and sincere.

Final Advice and Thoughts

You may try to write your peer response using different color pens—for example, green for praise, orange for combination comments, or green to praise stylistic techniques and blue to praise ideas. Also, give yourself enough space and time to write conversational praise. As an example, Andrea writes in the space next to Jordan’s title “The Unwritten”: I really like your title—it fits well with the theme running through about things we must accept in life that are too complicated to be written in a rulebook. Since you only mention writing a couple times in the piece, it’s nice and subtle.  In the left margin of Carolyn’s essay “Alone,” Andrea writes, I like the repetition of the two phrases “ but I am alone” and “my cat who is on my chest.” Even though there are multiple metaphors in this piece, keeping the repetition going grounds the reader to where the narrator is and really creates the feeling of what it’s like when your body isn’t moving but your brain is going a million miles an hour. Andrea writes small and can fit this comment in the top margin, but you may want to write lengthier praise on the back of the page or in an endnote/letter to the author. Although it takes a bit more time to write such conversational praise, compared to “Good title,” or “I like the repetition,” Andrea’s comments say so much more to Jordan and Carolyn. They are examples of what Donald Daiker would describe as “genuine praise” (112).

Being a peer responder is not just about being a good one or a bad one, it is, just as it is with your writing, about your investment in joining a real conversation with others. When combined with additional types of peer feedback that you will practice—such as asking questions, giving advice for revision, critiquing an argument’s shortcomings, and/or making corrections—praising well and with sincerity will help your classmates improve their writing and enhance their desire to write with a specific audience in mind. Together, you will avoid “the descent” and develop as writers and readers, and maybe even enjoy the journey together.

Works Cited

Teacher resources for "how to write meaningful peer response praise" by ron depeter, introduction for teachers.

Instructors could assign this essay in a first-year or upper-level writing course or workshop, during the early part of a semester when students are practicing peer feedback. The essay is in some sense an indirect sequel to Straub’s “Response—Really Responding—To Other Students’ Writing,” looking more in-depth at one specific mode of peer response. It is recommended that students have opportunities to practice writing feedback— perhaps on one or more sample essays that the instructor has collected from previous students. Ideally, students should practice writing each mode of commentary (for example, 1–2 sessions writing praise, 1–2 sessions writing questions/advice, 1–2 sessions combining several modes) before diving into small group or whole class workshops. Ideally, the instructor can give some feedback or grades on the practice feedback, letting the students know how they are doing and how they might improve (e.g., write more comments, make comments more specific, etc.). After each peer feedback practice session, and in the “real” workshops with classmates, students can reflect in their journal/class discussion on how they feel they are coming along as responders, as well as how they feel about the comments received. Such meta-writings are essential threads that facilitate the students’ growth as readers and responders.

Discussion Questions

• Do any of the attitudes about peer response that DePeter discusses in the beginning of his essay apply to you (e.g., not wanting to “judge” others or regarding a teacher’s feedback as more important than peers’)? Where do you imagine these attitudes come from?
• How do you think Nick (or any peer) would feel hearing the praise comments written in the Donald Murray style of “I like the way you…”? What effect would such praise have on the writer, com- pared to just seeing “Good” next to a passage?
• Do you feel there is a difference between what you feel is “good writing,” and that which teachers have identified as “good?” If so, what accounts for these different expectations? What is your definition of “good writing?”

Can you think of ways that Nick or Andrea’s peer response praise could be even sharper, or more helpful to an author?

Discuss experiences you have had in other classes sharing peer response. Have they been a metaphorical “Descent,” or enjoyable journeys? What made your peer response sessions in the past work, or not work?

This essay was written by Ron DePeter and published as a chapter in Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing , Volume 3, a peer-reviewed open textbook series for the writing classroom. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) .

Contact Info

Kennesaw Campus 1000 Chastain Road Kennesaw, GA 30144

Marietta Campus 1100 South Marietta Pkwy Marietta, GA 30060

Campus Maps

Phone 470-KSU-INFO (470-578-4636)

kennesaw.edu/info

Media Resources

Resources For

Related Links

• Financial Aid
• Degrees, Majors & Programs
• Job Opportunities
• Campus Security
• Global Education
• Sustainability
• Accessibility

470-KSU-INFO (470-578-4636)

© 2024 Kennesaw State University. All Rights Reserved.

• Privacy Statement
• Accreditation
• Emergency Information
• Reporting Hotline
• Open Records
• Human Trafficking Notice

The Reel Digger

Looking for anthropological truth in modern media

Soldiering. And Peer Review. How Do You Write for the Profession?

What Constitutes a Good Peer Review?

[Today’s music? Some Blues Traveller, because rock harmonica is always in style! Hook ]

I like to say that everything I needed to know in life, I learned in the army. The subject of today’s blog is no different, and I learned about peer review while training infantry recruits. My last posting was to the Battle School of the Royal Canadian Regiment , RCR. The RCR is Canada’s oldest English infantry regiment, and the Battle School is where recruits go to learn the serious business of engaging with, and killing, enemy forces. Every morning, recruits marched into the instruction hall, and written above the door was the school’s motto: “Never pass a fault”. The recruits were challenged many times during training, and later in their careers, with understanding and explaining what that meant. They all came to understand that they must not only self-reflect to ensure that their actions were correct, but in the dangerous profession of arms, they must never allow their fellow soldiers to commit faulty actions. Faults are dangerous. For soldiers, faults get people killed. (General Vance used this motto as the core of a speech given to graduates of the Royal Military College ; it’s worth a read if you want to understand soldiers a bit better).

The Battle School of the RCR had a core principle, and commitment, for soldiers to continually assess their leaders, themselves, and their peers to ensure that they properly followed the requirements of their profession – a practice of constant peer reviews.

My first understanding, then, of a good peer review is that although it is traditionally a practice in writing, it can (and is) employed as practice for life. Some organizations, such as the military, use constant peer reviews as a way to maximize safety and build cohesion. Other organizations consider peer reviews for more constrained purposes, such as a way to write an effective journal paper; in this case, peer reviews are both effective in supporting the profession, and in delivering an effective style of writing.

So, let’s focus on peer reviews as an aspect of the writing process.

Before considering what constitutes a good peer review, I have to start right at the beginning. What exactly is a peer review, or peer edit? Is it different from a regular review or an edit? After all, the process of editing is well understood; but does the process change if you precede the “review” with the word “peer”?

I believe that the word “peer” adds a new dimension of responsibility to the editing process. The reviewer is a peer of the author, a member of the same profession, the same organizations, and follows the formal and informal rules and responsibilities that are followed by the author, and by fellow professionals. As the peer reviewer, your job is to ensure that the writer at least meets the minimum expected standards for the profession; thus, the starting point for a good peer review is an acknowledgement of self-regulation: together, the author/editor team is both creating and supporting the discipline.

Just editing a document entangles the expectations of the author, editor, and reader; a peer review adds new complexities. The peer reviewer must have an understanding of the discipline, an understanding of the journal (or whatever the medium of expression is), an understanding of the subject matter, and an understanding of the author’s perspective. Does the written product meet the standards expected of someone in the same profession of the author, and the editor? If the editor feels that the author is not meeting a formal or an informal “expected” standard, does the editor have the mandate and the skills to elevate the written work to where it should be? How much should the editor be teaching the author about where their place in the profession is, and how the author needs to get there?

Once the peer reviewer has accepted the perspective that they represent the interests of the profession as much as the interests of the author, then the editing process begins. In one sense, editing is conducted “as per normal” (I’m not going to dwell on the editing process; for me, “editing is editing, and multiple processes for the technical aspects of editing and peer review exist; however, these are usually similar, and as long as you follow a consistent editing process, the important elements of editing will be completed); however, there is the acknowledgement that there is something more to consider. Imagine if you were editing a paper in a completely different field; for example, maybe astronomy. I could edit that paper to ensure that correct punctuation was present, or that spelling was correct and consistent, but my lack of knowledge would prevent me from using the correct terms and expressions, or ensuring that the rigour needed to prove conclusive statements was present or correct. I would definitely lack the knowledge of the existing scholarship, and not know if the paper was relevant to the field, if it was redundant, or if the the paper was revolutionary. The lack of context that a peer brings to the editing process is critical for success of the paper, and in supporting the field.

Finally, after the editing process is complete, the peer review differs from how editing processes in how the edited paper is presented back to the author. In non-peer editing, the focus is on the edits, and understanding and resolving what is on the paper (or screen). In a good peer-review, the reviewer is focused on improving the author and aligning them with professional expectations as much as improving the text. Although the reviewer’s approach will depend on their relationship with the author, the essence of a good peer review will remain to “never pass a fault”.

“editing a paper in a completely different field” is a very fun consideration here. I do agree that lacking knowledge in a field can make the editing process less robust, but having someone from another area entirely can also really add to knowing whether or not you’re conveying ideas in a clear and meaningful way. Some papers are meant to be more exclusionary and meant for a specific group of people only, but if the aim is for the general public to understand your writing, having someone who knows nothing step up and say what they did and didn’t understand absolutely serves a purpose, too.

Fair point. There is a lot to be said for writing for the general group. However, as a counterpoint: if you are writing for the general group, you will be explaining / re-explaining / re-justifying material that your primary audience already knows. Imagine if I wanted to discuss identifying bacterial species at a particular site. If I write for my peers, there is little need to go through the limitations of polymerase chain reaction technology; instead, I can focus on the relevant results. If I acknowledge that the audience is peers and public, then I would point the public to relevant background info. And if I really knew my subject and my audience, and was writing for the public, then I would know to start simply, and build to my results. There’s a lot to be said for writing for the general group. There’s more to be said about writing for the audience, and ensuring that the information is at the appropriate level. A good peer reviewer can ensure it meets audience requirements … including keeping things at the appropriate level. Failing that, maybe it’s just not the place for a public / generalist / layperson.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

CAPTCHA Code *

• Study Guides
• Homework Questions

Fiction Essay Peer Review

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

A.I.-Generated Garbage Is Polluting Our Culture

By Erik Hoel

Mr. Hoel is a neuroscientist and novelist and the author of The Intrinsic Perspective newsletter.

Increasingly, mounds of synthetic A.I.-generated outputs drift across our feeds and our searches. The stakes go far beyond what’s on our screens. The entire culture is becoming affected by A.I.’s runoff, an insidious creep into our most important institutions.

Consider science. Right after the blockbuster release of GPT-4, the latest artificial intelligence model from OpenAI and one of the most advanced in existence, the language of scientific research began to mutate. Especially within the field of A.I. itself.

Adjectives associated with A.I.-generated text have increased in peer reviews of scientific papers about A.I.

Frequency of adjectives per one million words

Commendable

A study published this month examined scientists’ peer reviews — researchers’ official pronouncements on others’ work that form the bedrock of scientific progress — across a number of high-profile and prestigious scientific conferences studying A.I. At one such conference, those peer reviews used the word “meticulous” more than 34 times as often as reviews did the previous year. Use of “commendable” was around 10 times as frequent, and “intricate,” 11 times. Other major conferences showed similar patterns.

Such phrasings are, of course, some of the favorite buzzwords of modern large language models like ChatGPT. In other words, significant numbers of researchers at A.I. conferences were caught handing their peer review of others’ work over to A.I. — or, at minimum, writing them with lots of A.I. assistance. And the closer to the deadline the submitted reviews were received, the more A.I. usage was found in them.

If this makes you uncomfortable — especially given A.I.’s current unreliability — or if you think that maybe it shouldn’t be A.I.s reviewing science but the scientists themselves, those feelings highlight the paradox at the core of this technology: It’s unclear what the ethical line is between scam and regular usage. Some A.I.-generated scams are easy to identify, like the medical journal paper featuring a cartoon rat sporting enormous genitalia. Many others are more insidious, like the mislabeled and hallucinated regulatory pathway described in that same paper — a paper that was peer reviewed as well (perhaps, one might speculate, by another A.I.?).

What about when A.I. is used in one of its intended ways — to assist with writing? Recently, there was an uproar when it became obvious that simple searches of scientific databases returned phrases like “As an A.I. language model” in places where authors relying on A.I. had forgotten to cover their tracks. If the same authors had simply deleted those accidental watermarks, would their use of A.I. to write their papers have been fine?

What’s going on in science is a microcosm of a much bigger problem. Post on social media? Any viral post on X now almost certainly includes A.I.-generated replies, from summaries of the original post to reactions written in ChatGPT’s bland Wikipedia-voice, all to farm for follows. Instagram is filling up with A.I.-generated models, Spotify with A.I.-generated songs. Publish a book? Soon after, on Amazon there will often appear A.I.-generated “workbooks” for sale that supposedly accompany your book (which are incorrect in their content; I know because this happened to me). Top Google search results are now often A.I.-generated images or articles. Major media outlets like Sports Illustrated have been creating A.I.-generated articles attributed to equally fake author profiles. Marketers who sell search engine optimization methods openly brag about using A.I. to create thousands of spammed articles to steal traffic from competitors.

Then there is the growing use of generative A.I. to scale the creation of cheap synthetic videos for children on YouTube. Some example outputs are Lovecraftian horrors, like music videos about parrots in which the birds have eyes within eyes, beaks within beaks, morphing unfathomably while singing in an artificial voice, “The parrot in the tree says hello, hello!” The narratives make no sense, characters appear and disappear randomly, and basic facts like the names of shapes are wrong. After I identified a number of such suspicious channels on my newsletter, The Intrinsic Perspective, Wired found evidence of generative A.I. use in the production pipelines of some accounts with hundreds of thousands or even millions of subscribers.

As a neuroscientist, this worries me. Isn’t it possible that human culture contains within it cognitive micronutrients — things like cohesive sentences, narrations and character continuity — that developing brains need? Einstein supposedly said : “If you want your children to be intelligent, read them fairy tales. If you want them to be very intelligent, read them more fairy tales.” But what happens when a toddler is consuming mostly A.I.-generated dream-slop? We find ourselves in the midst of a vast developmental experiment.

There’s so much synthetic garbage on the internet now that A.I. companies and researchers are themselves worried, not about the health of the culture, but about what’s going to happen with their models. As A.I. capabilities ramped up in 2022, I wrote on the risk of culture’s becoming so inundated with A.I. creations that when future A.I.s are trained, the previous A.I. output will leak into the training set, leading to a future of copies of copies of copies, as content became ever more stereotyped and predictable. In 2023 researchers introduced a technical term for how this risk affected A.I. training: model collapse . In a way, we and these companies are in the same boat, paddling through the same sludge streaming into our cultural ocean.

With that unpleasant analogy in mind, it’s worth looking to what is arguably the clearest historical analogy for our current situation: the environmental movement and climate change. For just as companies and individuals were driven to pollute by the inexorable economics of it, so, too, is A.I.’s cultural pollution driven by a rational decision to fill the internet’s voracious appetite for content as cheaply as possible. While environmental problems are nowhere near solved, there has been undeniable progress that has kept our cities mostly free of smog and our lakes mostly free of sewage. How?

Before any specific policy solution was the acknowledgment that environmental pollution was a problem in need of outside legislation. Influential to this view was a perspective developed in 1968 by Garrett Hardin, a biologist and ecologist. Dr. Hardin emphasized that the problem of pollution was driven by people acting in their own interest, and that therefore “we are locked into a system of ‘fouling our own nest,’ so long as we behave only as independent, rational, free-enterprisers.” He summed up the problem as a “tragedy of the commons.” This framing was instrumental for the environmental movement, which would come to rely on government regulation to do what companies alone could or would not.

Once again we find ourselves enacting a tragedy of the commons: short-term economic self-interest encourages using cheap A.I. content to maximize clicks and views, which in turn pollutes our culture and even weakens our grasp on reality. And so far, major A.I. companies are refusing to pursue advanced ways to identify A.I.’s handiwork — which they could do by adding subtle statistical patterns hidden in word use or in the pixels of images.

A common justification for inaction is that human editors can always fiddle around with whatever patterns are used if they know enough. Yet many of the issues we’re experiencing are not caused by motivated and technically skilled malicious actors; they’re caused mostly by regular users’ not adhering to a line of ethical use so fine as to be nigh nonexistent. Most would be uninterested in advanced countermeasures to statistical patterns enforced into outputs that should, ideally, mark them as A.I.-generated.

That’s why the independent researchers were able to detect A.I. outputs in the peer review system with surprisingly high accuracy: They actually tried. Similarly, right now teachers across the nation have created home-brewed output-side detection methods , like adding hidden requests for patterns of word use to essay prompts that appear only when copied and pasted.

In particular, A.I. companies appear opposed to any patterns baked into their output that can improve A.I.-detection efforts to reasonable levels, perhaps because they fear that enforcing such patterns might interfere with the model’s performance by constraining its outputs too much — although there is no current evidence this is a risk. Despite public pledges to develop more advanced watermarking, it’s increasingly clear that the companies are dragging their feet because it goes against the A.I. industry’s bottom line to have detectable products.

To deal with this corporate refusal to act we need the equivalent of a Clean Air Act: a Clean Internet Act. Perhaps the simplest solution would be to legislatively force advanced watermarking intrinsic to generated outputs, like patterns not easily removable. Just as the 20th century required extensive interventions to protect the shared environment, the 21st century is going to require extensive interventions to protect a different, but equally critical, common resource, one we haven’t noticed up until now since it was never under threat: our shared human culture.

Erik Hoel is a neuroscientist, a novelist and the author of The Intrinsic Perspective newsletter.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .