Module 5 Week 11 Supplement 12

SPEAKING TRUTH EFFECTIVELY How to provide insightful and effective peer reviews.

Objectives 1. Define the attributes of an effective peer review 2. Analyze the effectiveness of sample reviewer comments 3. Apply these concepts to your Mock Study Section reviews

Case Scenario You and your team have spent countless hours writing your BIO399 proposal, and you are all eager to get a good grade on the final draft. As you are working on your draft, you sense that there are some problems in your writing, but you are not quite certain about how to fix the problems. Where will you go for help?

Case (continued) You decide to swap papers with another team in your class to exchange comments before the final deadline. As your team waits eagerly for help editing the work you finally receive the comments…….

“Great job!” One comment read:

“I don’t get the point of this proposal” Another read:

How does this feedback help you and your team?

What are the attributes of an effective peer review?

1. Helps improve the writing sample Be honest but not harsh or personal

2. Comments are specific, and give direction Specific directive comment General, but useful comment Vague comment Most helpful Not helpful

Comment Categories DefinitionExample Specific and gives direction Comments point out a specific problem area of the paper, and explain reasoning for why a change is needed. Comments give a specific direction or action step for revision. “I do not think the introduction fully describes the significance of the research in a way that the reader can understand. Since the experiments are simple and don’t need much background, expanding the significance will strengthen the paper. Try giving a few examples of the problem in a community or include recent statistics and epidemiological data as warrants for the significance of the problem” General, but useful Comments are too general, but provide some direction for revision “I don’t like your introduction. Maybe describe the hypothesis a little better” Vague Comments are full of generalities, provide little or no specific direction for revision and/or comments that simply praise or disagree with the writing “Try to revise the whole second page” “I liked it” “Way to go”

Apply your knowledge: For the peer review comments to follow, analyze whether or not the comment is effective in helping the writer. What type of comment is it (vague, general but useful, or specific –directive)? If it is effective, what makes it so? If it is not, what is the comment missing? What could the peer reviewer add to make the comment more effective?

Analyze the effectiveness of these reviews: A. “This is disorganized!” B. "This section discusses both animal-rearing conditions and experimental methods, but the two are mixed together, making it difficult to focus on your points. Could you separate each into its own paragraph?”

Analyze the effectiveness of these reviews: C. “How are these references relevant?” D. “The background and references given in paragraph 2 don't seem directly relevant to your project’s goal. I think we need references that give facts on the dangers of antibiotic resistance specifically rather than references that explain the extensive history of antibiotics and its positive effects.”

Analyze the effectiveness of these reviews: E. “Your hypothesis is unclear.” F. “I am having trouble understanding your hypothesis. The hypothesis needs to be clear so that the reader is sure that your experimental design is likely to give the desired outcome. Could you state specifically the hypothesis in terms of dependent and independent variables?”

Doing it for real: how do I approach the peer review?

Keep these strategies in mind: 1. Read carefully. Skimming the paper is not enough to really help the writer. 2. Be positive. Point out strengths as well as weaknesses, and be sensitive in how you phrase your criticism (“Could you clarify this section?” rather than “Your organization is a mess.”) 3. Be honest. Please don’t say something works when it really doesn’t. You’re not helping the writer if you avoid mentioning a problem. 4. Be specific. Rather than simply saying a paragraph is “confusing,” for example, try to point to a specific phrase that confuses you and, if possible, explain why that phrase is problematic. 5. Focus on one or two major areas for revision – it is not your job to completely edit the paper, but instead to focus on major suggestions

Good luck and have fun! Adapted by P. Soneral from E. Trauth, A. Tartaglia, R. Ellman, M. Jones, and A Dennin University of South Florida