{"id":3421,"date":"2020-06-12T16:32:04","date_gmt":"2020-06-12T20:32:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/technicalwriting\/?post_type=chapter&p=3421"},"modified":"2022-09-14T11:24:11","modified_gmt":"2022-09-14T15:24:11","slug":"appendix-h-peer-review-essentials","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/technicalwriting\/chapter\/appendix-h-peer-review-essentials\/","title":{"raw":"Appendix H: Peer Review Essentials","rendered":"Appendix H: Peer Review Essentials"},"content":{"raw":"Peer review is standard in both professional and academic contexts. When you submit a paper in a course, or deliver a document to a client, you\u2019re not usually sitting in front of the person who reads your work while they read it. Even though your writing may make sense to you, there\u2019s no guarantee that your reader will engage with your writing in the way that you intended. In fact, different readers will have different lived experiences, different knowledges, and different backgrounds, and all of these can affect a reading experience. This is one of the reasons that it\u2019s so important to keep your audience(s) in mind while you\u2019re writing. If you are creating content, whether written or in some other mode, having a colleague review it before presenting it to the final intended audience is common practice.\r\n\r\nPeer review entails having a peer -- a fellow student who is familiar with your assignment, or a colleague who understands your purpose -- review and offer feedback on the effectiveness of your content and how it might be improved. While peer review ultimately benefits the intended reader\/user as a form of \"quality control\" ensuring an effective final product, it also has clear benefits for both the content creator and the reviewer. In the process of peer review, creators can get helpful feedback on how they can improve their content\/organization\/format, and reviewers can learn from the content they are reviewing, reinforce the assignment and grading criteria, and come back to their own draft with a fresh perspective. For both it is a helpful way to review content, structure, style and formatting before submitting your final document to its intended reader. Building in time for peer review also helps with time management, as you have a completed final draft well before the due date.\r\n
\r\n

In order to attain the maximum benefits of Peer Review, both authors and reviewers should keep the following strategies in mind:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

\r\n\r\nAuthor Strategies\r\n<\/strong>\r\n
    \r\n \t
  • Be prepared<\/strong>: submit the most polished and complete draft possible in order to fully benefit from peer review. A partial or very rough draft can benefit from some preliminary review, but a completed draft can elicit more helpful and detailed feedback.<\/li>\r\n \t
  • Give reviewer some guidance<\/strong>: describe the concerns you have about your paper at this point. Alert your reviewer to areas where you would particularly appreciate feedback. If the reviewer is not familiar with your purpose and audience, fill them in.<\/li>\r\n \t
  • Be open to new ideas<\/strong>: avoid becoming defensive about the feedback; remember, your reviewer is trying help you improve your draft. Consider alternative viewpoints you may not have thought of before; listen before deciding what you will do.<\/li>\r\n \t
  • Consider advice carefully<\/strong>: think critically about whether the reviewer\u2019s suggestions will help you to improve your draft and if they are appropriate for your purpose and audience. What and how you revise is ultimately up to you; take your reviewer\u2019s advice with a grain of salt, and seek additional advice if you are unsure what to do.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\nReviewer Strategies\r\n<\/strong>\r\n
      \r\n \t
    • Know the document's purpose<\/strong>: review the assignment description and\/or grading rubric before reviewing the draft; know what the document\u00a0 is trying to achieve before you assess whether it needs revision to achieve it.<\/li>\r\n \t
    • Focus on the positive<\/strong>: be honest and critical, but also point out strong areas where things are working well. Use positive, constructive tone to discuss areas that could use improvement. Don\u2019t gush (\u201cyour paper is so awesome!\u201d) and don\u2019t trash (\u201cThis totally sucks! Rewrite the whole thing!\u201d). Remember your purpose is to help the author find ways to improve the draft; recognize what is already good, and suggest what could use further work.<\/li>\r\n \t
    • Be specific<\/strong>: explain why a sentence, paragraph, or image needs improvement; explain why you as the reader are confused or bothered by a specific phrase or passage, or why the logic does not flow for you (be \"reader centred\").<\/li>\r\n \t
    • Be courteous<\/strong>: be aware of your language use and tone when addressing peers. Avoid patronizing or \u201ctalking down\u201d to your peers when giving advice.<\/li>\r\n \t
    • Don\u2019t edit<\/strong>: Your job is reviewer, not editor. Don\u2019t fix errors or phrasing issues; just point out areas that need improvement. You might offer ONE sample correction to demonstrate what you mean, but do not engage in wholesale editing. A key purpose of peer review is for each person to learn how to edit their own work based on reviewer feedback.<\/li>\r\n \t
    • Be efficient<\/strong>: don\u2019t overwhelm your author with too much detailed feedback. A page that has more feedback notes than content will be very difficult to process. Focus on a handful (3-6?) of the most important revisions that are needed to help improve the draft. For example, if there are numerous spelling errors, don\u2019t point them all out; highlight one or two and then comment that the draft contains numerous spelling errors that will need fixing before it can be submitted.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n \r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

      <\/h2>\r\n

      Methods of giving feedback<\/strong><\/h2>\r\nThere are many ways to provide feedback on someone\u2019s work; how you do this will depend on what form of work you are reviewing, the context, and the situation. For example, if you are doing a peer review in a classroom with your peer groups face-to-face, you might give feedback verbally, or you might put hand-written feedback on their papers. In some cases, your instructor might give you a checklist to use, which you must fill out as you are reading your peer\u2019s draft.\r\n\r\nIf working remotely, you might read your peer\u2019s work as an online post, and post a reply in which you write out all your feedback within the reply window, like the one below.\r\n\r\n\"Example\r\n\r\nTo offer more detailed feedback, you might download the author\u2019s document and write inline comments on the draft \u2013 ideally using a different colour to make your comments standout more easily, as seen below.\r\n\r\n\"Example\r\n\r\nThen upload your revised document as a reply to the author.\r\n\r\nInline comments can affect the formatting of the document, so you may instead want to use the \u201cinsert comment\u201d function.\r\n\r\n\"Example This will allow the document formatting to remain stable, and your comments can be easily deleted after reading.\r\n\r\nRead Aloud<\/strong> is a method of peer-review that focuses on giving the content creator access to the reader\u2019s experience. Rather than having a peer offer written feedback about the draft, the Read Aloud method invites students to express their experience as a reader. When a peer reviews your work, you can see how they are responding to your draft in real time. When you\u2019re reviewing a peer\u2019s work, you get practice expressing your experience as a reader and thinking critically about why and how different aspects of writing can shape your reading experience. These reflections are really helpful if you can apply them to your own work!\r\n\r\nAlthough there are many different ways of doing read aloud peer review, there are some guidelines to follow. Consider working in pairs, taking turns reading each other\u2019s drafts out loud. If you\u2019re reading your partner\u2019s work out loud, here are some guidelines that might be helpful:\r\n
        \r\n \t
      • If you\u2019re face-to-face, try to read your partner\u2019s draft loud enough so that they can hear their writing being read out loud. Sometimes, a change from reading to hearing can help to catch writing habits that need attention.<\/li>\r\n \t
      • Try to make yourself comment on your experience after each sentence!<\/li>\r\n \t
      • If you stumble, pause, or have to reread something, this is usually a good opportunity to reflect on why this happened and explain this to your partner.<\/li>\r\n \t
      • Remember to be kind, supportive, and compassionate.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\nIf your draft is being read out loud, here are some guidelines:\r\n
          \r\n \t
        • Make sure to have a draft of your writing on which you\u2019re able to make comments, and a way of sharing your draft with a partner. This could mean having 2 printed copies of your draft, using an online tool such as google docs, or simply having a laptop or tablet that you feel comfortable handing to your partner.<\/li>\r\n \t
        • While your partner is reading your work out loud, listen carefully. Sometimes, changing the medium of your words can help you to catch writing habits that need attention.<\/li>\r\n \t
        • Take notes on your reader\u2019s reactions. Are there places where what you\u2019re trying to say and what they\u2019re responding don\u2019t match up? If so, highlight these places and return to them for revision.<\/li>\r\n \t
        • If your partner says, \u201cI like this,\u201d consider asking them to be explicit about their reading experience. What about it do they like?<\/li>\r\n \t
        • If you have specific concerns about your writing, consider highlighting these for your partner. For example, you might ask your peer to focus on your argument or your evidence.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\nHaving your work read out loud can be uncomfortable, nerve-wracking, or even scary! Having said that, having the feedback put in terms of your reader\u2019s experience can help. Practice and repetition can also help to make this less intimidating.\r\n\r\nIn order to make sure that you and your partner are commenting on the experience of reading -- and NOT making corrections to the paper -- the table below offers some guidelines for things to say.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
          Instead of saying....<\/strong><\/td>\r\nTry saying...<\/strong><\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
          This paper has no thesis<\/td>\r\nI\u2019m through the first paragraph, and I\u2019m still not quite sure what the main claim of the paper is.<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
          This word is wrong<\/td>\r\nI find this word choice to be confusing. It means something different to me.<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
          This is a run-on sentence or <\/em>This sentence is too long<\/td>\r\nI\u2019ve lost track of what\u2019s happening in this sentence.<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
          This is unclear<\/td>\r\nI\u2019m having trouble understanding this part.<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
          This point doesn\u2019t belong here<\/td>\r\nI\u2019m struggling to see how this point relates to your argument.<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
          This is really good<\/td>\r\nI found this sentence easy to read because\u2026<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\nWhichever method you use to provide feedback, keep in mind these essential guidelines:\r\n
            \r\n \t
          • Be specific:<\/em><\/strong> give the author specific examples and details; avoid vague or overly general statements<\/li>\r\n \t
          • Be constructive:<\/em><\/strong> try to help the author improve the quality of their work in substantial ways; point out what is working well<\/li>\r\n \t
          • Be courteous:<\/em><\/strong> remember the golden rule, and give feedback in a way that you would like to receive it yourself.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n ","rendered":"

            Peer review is standard in both professional and academic contexts. When you submit a paper in a course, or deliver a document to a client, you\u2019re not usually sitting in front of the person who reads your work while they read it. Even though your writing may make sense to you, there\u2019s no guarantee that your reader will engage with your writing in the way that you intended. In fact, different readers will have different lived experiences, different knowledges, and different backgrounds, and all of these can affect a reading experience. This is one of the reasons that it\u2019s so important to keep your audience(s) in mind while you\u2019re writing. If you are creating content, whether written or in some other mode, having a colleague review it before presenting it to the final intended audience is common practice.<\/p>\n

            Peer review entails having a peer — a fellow student who is familiar with your assignment, or a colleague who understands your purpose — review and offer feedback on the effectiveness of your content and how it might be improved. While peer review ultimately benefits the intended reader\/user as a form of “quality control” ensuring an effective final product, it also has clear benefits for both the content creator and the reviewer. In the process of peer review, creators can get helpful feedback on how they can improve their content\/organization\/format, and reviewers can learn from the content they are reviewing, reinforce the assignment and grading criteria, and come back to their own draft with a fresh perspective. For both it is a helpful way to review content, structure, style and formatting before submitting your final document to its intended reader. Building in time for peer review also helps with time management, as you have a completed final draft well before the due date.<\/p>\n

            \n
            \n

            In order to attain the maximum benefits of Peer Review, both authors and reviewers should keep the following strategies in mind:<\/p>\n<\/header>\n

            \n

            Author Strategies
            \n<\/strong><\/p>\n

              \n
            • Be prepared<\/strong>: submit the most polished and complete draft possible in order to fully benefit from peer review. A partial or very rough draft can benefit from some preliminary review, but a completed draft can elicit more helpful and detailed feedback.<\/li>\n
            • Give reviewer some guidance<\/strong>: describe the concerns you have about your paper at this point. Alert your reviewer to areas where you would particularly appreciate feedback. If the reviewer is not familiar with your purpose and audience, fill them in.<\/li>\n
            • Be open to new ideas<\/strong>: avoid becoming defensive about the feedback; remember, your reviewer is trying help you improve your draft. Consider alternative viewpoints you may not have thought of before; listen before deciding what you will do.<\/li>\n
            • Consider advice carefully<\/strong>: think critically about whether the reviewer\u2019s suggestions will help you to improve your draft and if they are appropriate for your purpose and audience. What and how you revise is ultimately up to you; take your reviewer\u2019s advice with a grain of salt, and seek additional advice if you are unsure what to do.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

              Reviewer Strategies
              \n<\/strong><\/p>\n

                \n
              • Know the document’s purpose<\/strong>: review the assignment description and\/or grading rubric before reviewing the draft; know what the document\u00a0 is trying to achieve before you assess whether it needs revision to achieve it.<\/li>\n
              • Focus on the positive<\/strong>: be honest and critical, but also point out strong areas where things are working well. Use positive, constructive tone to discuss areas that could use improvement. Don\u2019t gush (\u201cyour paper is so awesome!\u201d) and don\u2019t trash (\u201cThis totally sucks! Rewrite the whole thing!\u201d). Remember your purpose is to help the author find ways to improve the draft; recognize what is already good, and suggest what could use further work.<\/li>\n
              • Be specific<\/strong>: explain why a sentence, paragraph, or image needs improvement; explain why you as the reader are confused or bothered by a specific phrase or passage, or why the logic does not flow for you (be “reader centred”).<\/li>\n
              • Be courteous<\/strong>: be aware of your language use and tone when addressing peers. Avoid patronizing or \u201ctalking down\u201d to your peers when giving advice.<\/li>\n
              • Don\u2019t edit<\/strong>: Your job is reviewer, not editor. Don\u2019t fix errors or phrasing issues; just point out areas that need improvement. You might offer ONE sample correction to demonstrate what you mean, but do not engage in wholesale editing. A key purpose of peer review is for each person to learn how to edit their own work based on reviewer feedback.<\/li>\n
              • Be efficient<\/strong>: don\u2019t overwhelm your author with too much detailed feedback. A page that has more feedback notes than content will be very difficult to process. Focus on a handful (3-6?) of the most important revisions that are needed to help improve the draft. For example, if there are numerous spelling errors, don\u2019t point them all out; highlight one or two and then comment that the draft contains numerous spelling errors that will need fixing before it can be submitted.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

                <\/h2>\n

                Methods of giving feedback<\/strong><\/h2>\n

                There are many ways to provide feedback on someone\u2019s work; how you do this will depend on what form of work you are reviewing, the context, and the situation. For example, if you are doing a peer review in a classroom with your peer groups face-to-face, you might give feedback verbally, or you might put hand-written feedback on their papers. In some cases, your instructor might give you a checklist to use, which you must fill out as you are reading your peer\u2019s draft.<\/p>\n

                If working remotely, you might read your peer\u2019s work as an online post, and post a reply in which you write out all your feedback within the reply window, like the one below.<\/p>\n

                \"Example<\/p>\n

                To offer more detailed feedback, you might download the author\u2019s document and write inline comments on the draft \u2013 ideally using a different colour to make your comments standout more easily, as seen below.<\/p>\n

                \"Example<\/p>\n

                Then upload your revised document as a reply to the author.<\/p>\n

                Inline comments can affect the formatting of the document, so you may instead want to use the \u201cinsert comment\u201d function.<\/p>\n

                \"Example This will allow the document formatting to remain stable, and your comments can be easily deleted after reading.<\/p>\n

                Read Aloud<\/strong> is a method of peer-review that focuses on giving the content creator access to the reader\u2019s experience. Rather than having a peer offer written feedback about the draft, the Read Aloud method invites students to express their experience as a reader. When a peer reviews your work, you can see how they are responding to your draft in real time. When you\u2019re reviewing a peer\u2019s work, you get practice expressing your experience as a reader and thinking critically about why and how different aspects of writing can shape your reading experience. These reflections are really helpful if you can apply them to your own work!<\/p>\n

                Although there are many different ways of doing read aloud peer review, there are some guidelines to follow. Consider working in pairs, taking turns reading each other\u2019s drafts out loud. If you\u2019re reading your partner\u2019s work out loud, here are some guidelines that might be helpful:<\/p>\n

                  \n
                • If you\u2019re face-to-face, try to read your partner\u2019s draft loud enough so that they can hear their writing being read out loud. Sometimes, a change from reading to hearing can help to catch writing habits that need attention.<\/li>\n
                • Try to make yourself comment on your experience after each sentence!<\/li>\n
                • If you stumble, pause, or have to reread something, this is usually a good opportunity to reflect on why this happened and explain this to your partner.<\/li>\n
                • Remember to be kind, supportive, and compassionate.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                  If your draft is being read out loud, here are some guidelines:<\/p>\n

                    \n
                  • Make sure to have a draft of your writing on which you\u2019re able to make comments, and a way of sharing your draft with a partner. This could mean having 2 printed copies of your draft, using an online tool such as google docs, or simply having a laptop or tablet that you feel comfortable handing to your partner.<\/li>\n
                  • While your partner is reading your work out loud, listen carefully. Sometimes, changing the medium of your words can help you to catch writing habits that need attention.<\/li>\n
                  • Take notes on your reader\u2019s reactions. Are there places where what you\u2019re trying to say and what they\u2019re responding don\u2019t match up? If so, highlight these places and return to them for revision.<\/li>\n
                  • If your partner says, \u201cI like this,\u201d consider asking them to be explicit about their reading experience. What about it do they like?<\/li>\n
                  • If you have specific concerns about your writing, consider highlighting these for your partner. For example, you might ask your peer to focus on your argument or your evidence.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                    Having your work read out loud can be uncomfortable, nerve-wracking, or even scary! Having said that, having the feedback put in terms of your reader\u2019s experience can help. Practice and repetition can also help to make this less intimidating.<\/p>\n

                    In order to make sure that you and your partner are commenting on the experience of reading — and NOT making corrections to the paper — the table below offers some guidelines for things to say.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
                    Instead of saying….<\/strong><\/td>\nTry saying…<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                    This paper has no thesis<\/td>\nI\u2019m through the first paragraph, and I\u2019m still not quite sure what the main claim of the paper is.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                    This word is wrong<\/td>\nI find this word choice to be confusing. It means something different to me.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                    This is a run-on sentence or <\/em>This sentence is too long<\/td>\nI\u2019ve lost track of what\u2019s happening in this sentence.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                    This is unclear<\/td>\nI\u2019m having trouble understanding this part.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                    This point doesn\u2019t belong here<\/td>\nI\u2019m struggling to see how this point relates to your argument.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                    This is really good<\/td>\nI found this sentence easy to read because\u2026<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

                    Whichever method you use to provide feedback, keep in mind these essential guidelines:<\/p>\n

                      \n
                    • Be specific:<\/em><\/strong> give the author specific examples and details; avoid vague or overly general statements<\/li>\n
                    • Be constructive:<\/em><\/strong> try to help the author improve the quality of their work in substantial ways; point out what is working well<\/li>\n
                    • Be courteous:<\/em><\/strong> remember the golden rule, and give feedback in a way that you would like to receive it yourself.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                       <\/p>\n

                       <\/p>\n

                       <\/p>\n

                       <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":254,"menu_order":8,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":["suzan-last","loren-gaudet"],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[67,58],"license":[],"class_list":["post-3421","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry","contributor-loren-gaudet","contributor-suzan-last"],"part":1329,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/technicalwriting\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/3421","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/technicalwriting\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/technicalwriting\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/technicalwriting\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/254"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/technicalwriting\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/3421\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3595,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/technicalwriting\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/3421\/revisions\/3595"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/technicalwriting\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/1329"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/technicalwriting\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/3421\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/technicalwriting\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3421"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/technicalwriting\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=3421"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/technicalwriting\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=3421"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/technicalwriting\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=3421"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}