April 25th, 2017 CEGO 2: Brendan, Lida, Ivan and Lindsay Peer Review April 25th, 2017 CEGO 2: Brendan, Lida, Ivan and Lindsay "As a peer reviewer, your job is not to provide answers. You raise questions; the writer makes the choices. You act as a mirror, showing the writer how the draft looks to you and pointing out areas which need attention."

Inspiration and Benefits of Review For instructors: A time-efficient method of getting better overall writing quality from students For writers: Improved overall writing clarity and consistency of writing, better audience targeting, an idea of what reviewers look for, improved notion of the “big picture” For reviewers: development of critical thinking, improved communication, lifelong learning, collaborative skills, job openings “The least helpful comment to receive from a peer reviewer is ‘It looks OK to me.’ Nilson, LB. Improving Student Peer Feedback. College Teaching, 2003, 51(1), 34-38.

Critiques of the Peer Critiquing Process Questionable: Validity Reliability Accuracy With students as peers reviewers, the process can tend to be: Uncritical Superficial Vague Content-focused Why? Research points to a lack of understanding of the role the reviewer plays in the process, as a READER and not an EVALUATOR. Nilson, LB. Improving Student Peer Feedback. College Teaching, 2003, 51(1), 34-38.

Important Considerations Students: Looking for Comprehension Scholars: Looking for Evaluation Should try “active” reading methods [1, 2]: Which parts of the project are more or less effective with reasoning? Would you be able to list the major points? Which parts of text need revision? Should not have any bias The familiarity with a body of research should be used as the “bias” to the work [2,3] Often, one party is uncomfortable with opinions on the other side (i.e. students with evaluation and scholars with comprehension) As PhD students, we are transitioning from student  scholar, and should focus on becoming better evaluators while still maintaining the comprehension side. https://www.ucalgary.ca/ssc/files/ssc/wss_critique_2014.pdf https://teachingcenter.wustl.edu/resources/writing-assignments-feedback/planning-and-guiding-in-class-peer-review/ Nilson, LB. Improving Student Peer Feedback. College Teaching, 2003, 51(1), 34-38.

The Process: The “Ask” The Writer The Reviewer Who do you trust and respect enough to critically review your work? Give them plenty of time Be specific in your “ask” Examples “Could you take a look at my rationales under each aim and make sure they flow logically?” “My solicitation wants X, Y and Z, specifically, could you make sure I hit these major points?” Always read the “ask” If not clear, don’t be afraid to ask the writer what they are looking for in your comments Make sure you have time before accepting! Be aware of targets Word limits Deadlines Consider the intended audience http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/ld/resources/writing/writing-resources/editing

The Process Get familiar with the deadlines/timeline you have [1,8] Timing: suggested ~1 hr per 5 pages (for undergraduates – slightly shorter for grad students!) Read the document all the way through first [1] Tend to larger issues second: audience, purpose, organization [2] What is the motivation? Consider the “big picture” and potential contributions [3] Approach – what were they and are there alternatives [4] Consider impact, significance, and feasibility [5] Tend to sentence structure and word choices third [2,6] Ask if the writing is concise – are there parts that could be simplified? [6] Consider transitions Tend to word limits and conciseness last – what can be cut? Remember always that the writing is aimed toward a particular AUDIENCE [7] https://serc.carleton.edu/sp/library/peerreview/tips.html https://writing.colostate.edu/guides/teaching/peer/pop2b.cfm https://www.ucalgary.ca/ssc/files/ssc/wss_critique_2014.pdf https://violentmetaphors.com/2013/12/13/how-to-become-good-at-peer-review-a-guide-for-young-scientists https://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/p_awards/P01_Guide_for_Reviewers_a5.pdf http://www.unm.edu/~unmvclib/cascade/handouts/critiquingresearchpart1.pdf https://teachingcenter.wustl.edu/resources/writing-assignments-feedback/planning-and-guiding-in-class-peer-review/

Do… Raise questions that cross your mind as you read Be constructive Remember that review is in the “spirit of helpfulness” Be honest and confident in your review, despite who you are reviewing Ask questions on clarity, or say you don’t understand Critique using comparisons or established criteria Be specific and explanatory Give suggestions Be positive Think of your critique as a personal reaction, rather than judgement upon that work https://serc.carleton.edu/sp/library/peerreview/tips.html https://writing.colostate.edu/guides/teaching/peer/pop2b.cfm https://violentmetaphors.com/2013/12/13/how-to-become-good-at-peer-review-a-guide-for-young-scientists/ https://writersrumpus.com/2013/08/06/12-tips-for-effective-critiquing/ http://www.csus.edu/indiv/e/estiokom/ten_ideas.pdf https://www.writingforward.com/writing-tips/tips-for-critiquing-other-writers-work https://teachingcenter.wustl.edu/resources/writing-assignments-feedback/planning-and-guiding-in-class-peer-review/ Nilson, LB. Improving Student Peer Feedback. College Teaching, 2003, 51(1), 34-38.

Do not… Be rude Offer commands Point out weaknesses only Let your own opinion bias the review; it’s okay to disagree Turn your peer’s paper into your paper Be lazy Get personal (direct review to the writing, not the writer) Start a comment with “you” https://serc.carleton.edu/sp/library/peerreview/tips.html https://writing.colostate.edu/guides/teaching/peer/pop2b.cfm https://violentmetaphors.com/2013/12/13/how-to-become-good-at-peer-review-a-guide-for-young-scientists/ https://www.writingforward.com/writing-tips/tips-for-critiquing-other-writers-work

Summary 10 Tips on Reviewing a Paper [1] Be professional Be pleasant Read the invite Be helpful Be scientific Be timely Be realistic Be empathetic Be open Be organized Remember that your honest perception cannot be wrong! [2] https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/sep/27/peer-review-10-tips-research-paper Nilson, LB. Improving Student Peer Feedback. College Teaching, 2003, 51(1), 34-38.

The Process: Receiving Reviews You don’t always have to agree You can use and discard suggestions Accept criticism graciously; the draft will be better because of the review Remember your audience: did you really appeal to them? Ask yourself: What went wrong? Review your own work (in light of the reviews) critically to find out https://writersrumpus.com/2013/08/06/12-tips-for-effective-critiquing/

Questions to Ask for Specific Aims Is the purpose well explained? Can you follow the logic of the proposed project? What is the hypothesis and is it reasonable? Are the aims dependent on one another? Having a hard time reviewing? Try this: What are the main points of the project? Outline the project Highlight passages that you had to read more than once to figure out what the reader was saying? Bracket sentences that you found particularly strong What questions do you have after reading it as a member of the intended audience? Nilson, LB. Improving Student Peer Feedback. College Teaching, 2003, 51(1), 34-38.

Give it a try! Remember the format of specific aims. As a reviewer, this is what you are looking for: Active aim title stating objective What question is going to be answered? Experimental Strategy Outcome or Impact