peer article review example

peer article review example

Peer Article Review: The Importance of Peer Feedback in Academic Writing

1. Introduction

Writing a peer review article of academic work certainly offers itself to considering the advances of the work, giving the specialists input, and extending the profit from the article. Instead of just creating changes to the mistakes, or showing where the bad spots are, a great peer commentator will likewise say what is functioning admirably, helping the essayist to not alter the great parts, yet make them make a difference even all the more all through the article. A seeming assessment of peer review however is that is does no great, and in fact is damaging to the scholar. Doubters of peer review say that it is incapable, and does not enhance the work being reviewed. It is further stated that in spite of the broad consumption on time and exertion, its acquired worth is insignificant (Hopkins and Kingsley, 2016). The meaning of peer review is to evaluate the nature of composed scholarly work, and is customarily done on articles that are planned for distribution. This kind of peer audit serves to push the essayist to enhance the nature of their work, as the commentator will frequently be contrasting it with their own particular guidelines as a scholastic article of a comparative nature. Although Hopkins and Kingsley’s comments perhaps valid, you should ask what amount significant change might be recognized from an input and will it be typically considered as ‘worthwhile’ by both gatherings.

2. Benefits of Peer Feedback

According to Topping (1998) and many others, the most powerful feature of peer feedback is its ability to close the gap between what a learner can do and what the learner can almost do. One of the most consistent findings from validated research in peer assessment is a positive correlation between the use of peer assessment and improvements in academic performance. The feedback can inform students about the quality of their work, relative to a set of standards or compared with the work of their peers, identify strengths and weaknesses, guide and shape revision and self-improvement, and provide information to teachers about students’ learning. The nature of the feedback can have different effects. Some feedback can enhance motivation, in particular comments on improvement can give less confident students a feeling of progress and success. When peer feedback is provided to a high quality it can direct a student to the target learning, in the manner of scaffolding. Feedback which is overly critical can lead to undesirable effects. This can make the student feel disillusioned, particularly if there is a great difference between his perceived ability and the quality of his work. Some students become dependent on their peers for feedback and repeatedly fail the same task as they are over reliant on the revision and resubmission phase, at which point the feedback is no longer formative. Repeated failure can reduce student self-efficacy and result in a ‘why try’ effect, making students think that they are unable to perform the task.

3. Guidelines for Effective Peer Review

The evaluation should be done while reading through the paper in order to ensure that comments are made on the spots needing improvement. An effective evaluative technique is to assume that the writer will take the comments on the critique seriously and make an effort to change the paper. Consequently, it is useful to indicate to the writer what areas need improving and how to improve them. For example, “This paragraph is not clear. Rewrite your topic sentences to fully explain your ideas”. Finally, it is useful to give positive feedback as well. In this instance, the evaluator may be compelled to comment on a strong point made in the paper “Your use of a historical example here really helps to define these terms. Good work” (Houp & Pearsall, 1996). This method is effective as the tone of the feedback is defined to be persuasive and is in line with the theme of showing importance to academic writing.

4. Overcoming Challenges in Peer Review

The peer review process is indeed vital – yet it does not come without its areas of difficulty. During peer review, many authors are reluctant to constructively criticize a peer, yet are more worried about harming a friendship, damaging future collaboration opportunities, or diminishing the work of someone who is “senior” to them. It is important for the academic community to recognize that everyone makes a vital contribution when engaging in peer review and it is this process which strengthens the publication of research. It should also be remembered that critiquing the work is not the same as critiquing the person and it is up to the author how they will interpret the feedback given. When an author remains open-minded and takes on board feedback as constructive criticism, it shows when making revisions to their work. In instances where the feedback is misinterpreted, it is crucial that the author communicates effectively with the reviewer and further discussion is undertaken. A challenge often faced by those involved in peer reviewing an article in a group setting is a lack of standardization. This refers to a lack of formal training and the absence of established quality criteria which is leading to inconsistency within the group. An effective way to overcome this is by using one of the many online services to manage the peer review process. One example of such a service is the ScholarOne Manuscripts web-based system, which has features enabling a reviewer to access other reviews of the same article, thus making the decision regarding the status of an article more clear-cut. Another example is the Elsevier Editorial System, which guides the reviewer through a series of customized questions aimed at determining the quality of the article. The answers to these questions then determine whether the article is accepted or rejected. Although such software aids in standardizing the reviewing process, it still requires willing participants to use it effectively.

5. Conclusion

This article has provided a summary of peer review as a process, as well as a rationale for its suitability in the context of academic writing. It has also discussed the limitations facing educators wishing to implement peer feedback, and has suggested ways in which they might be eased. In doing so, the article has pointed out the dearth of empirical research on the topic, thus suggesting that further studies are required to more fully understand the impact of peer review on both the writing and learning processes. This article is one such study. It summarises two in-class activities using peer review and feedback, and evaluates the effectiveness of these activities in improving the academic writing of ESL students. The results of the study suggest that peer review is an effective tool for improving student writing, and that in order to maximise the benefits of peer feedback, students should be provided with clearly defined teacher expectations and assessment criteria. These results are in keeping with the suggestions made by prior research in the field, and are by no means confined to the realm of ESL learning. As such, they provide further rationale for the use of peer feedback in educational contexts.