1. 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."

2. 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),

3. 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),

4. 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.
Nilson, LB. Improving Student Peer Feedback. College Teaching, 2003, 51(1),

5. 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

6. 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]

7. 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
Nilson, LB. Improving Student Peer Feedback. College Teaching, 2003, 51(1),

8. 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”

9. 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]
Nilson, LB. Improving Student Peer Feedback. College Teaching, 2003, 51(1),

10. 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

11. 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),

12. 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