Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
Why Peer Review?
(1) Peer review gives you the opprotunity to have multiple readers evaluate your work, share their perspectives with you, and pick up on things you may have missed. It's valuable to you as a reviewer, by giving you practice evaluating a text, and it's valuable to you as a writer, because it can point you to areas where your writing can imporove, as well as point out to you things you're good at doing
(2) Peer review operates in professional contexts and in life beyond university
< Weird advertisement for a business course about giving and receiving feedback in the workplace
What does it mean to be constructive?
I really like how you provided a specific example here, it helped me understand what you were trying to explain.
I see why you're discussing this issue, but I'm unclear about how it relates to the first half of the paragraph.
This was a good paper :)
Wow this paper sucked you should never write again.
(3) Reviewing is not about finding fault with, and undermining the work of, others, or about only praising the author
GOOD FEEDBACK BAD FEEDBACK
(4) You, the writer, will still learn even if you receive poor reviews; in fact, you will learn more this way!! This means that you shouldn't be afraid to leave "negative" comments. Comments that give your peers advice about how to improve their writing will be more helpful then "positive" comments. You want to give and recieve well-reasoned comments; things that have a "because" attached.
As you review your peer's work, comment from these four different perspectives (this means you will be making AT LEAST 4 distinct comments on each draft you read!!)
1. "HOLISTIC" PERSPECTIVE
Identify and comment on what you think is the most compelling argument that the paper makes. That is, which proposed made the most sense to you, or was best supported, and why did you feel this way?
2. "STAKEHOLDER" PERSPECTIVE
Make a comment on the perspective from the point of view of Haas and Flower. Find a part where the writer engages with Haas and Flower (either through a quote or summary) and note if you think they are using their ideas fairly or reasonably; that is, what would Haas/Flower say if they were reading that paper?
3. READER-RESPONCE PERSPECTIVE
Comment on a part of the paper in a way that emphasizes your reaction as a reader; for example, ‘My impression is that the introduction of this second issue clouded the argument’ rather than ‘this argument is unconvincing’. For this perspective , you can also comment on that you emotionally respond to in some way (either agreeing, disagreeing, feeling confused or annoyed, etc.)
4. "STYLE" PERSPECTIVE
Make a comment on a stylistic element of the paper. This could be a sentence that you think is not working, or doesn't make sense to you, or that you think could be simplified or clarified. It could also be a sentence that you like, that you think is doing something cool. In either case, explain what you do or do not like about the sentence identified.