Peer Reviewing

Peer Reviewing

This lecture will cover the following topics:

• What is a good peer review?
• How do you submit a peer review?

What is a good peer review?

In the academic world, scholarly books and articles are not published unless they have undergone a type of quality-control process called "Peer Review." Basically what happens is this: An author submits an article to a journal. The journal editor decides if the piece is worthwhile. If so, he or she sends it to at least two peer reviewers, or other scholars with some expertise in the subject the article addresses. These reviewers will either recommend that the editor either accept or reject the piece for publication, then offer the author suggestions for revision.

We'd like to think that this process is as fair as possible, and there are some safeguards in place. When a journal editor sends the paper out for review, he or she will remove all identifying marks so that the reviewer isn't sure who wrote the article. This supposedly guards against favoritism and ensures the paper gets a fair evaluation. In reality, the journal editor knows which reviewers are more likely to accept or reject pieces. Some critics of the process cite an "Invisible College," or a sort of in-crowd in each field that controls publishing.

It might surprise you to learn that academics don't get paid when their articles are published in journals. They generally publish because their tenure or review boards require it. Academics who publish often and in the right places become "stars," and usually command higher salaries and more responsibilities at their universities. You may think I'm exaggerating by using the term "star" here, but if you attend a scholarly conference you will see what I mean (and probably do as I did and chuckle quite a bit at the sight of it). Getting on friendly, personal terms with "stars" is important because they can write highly influential letters of recommendation and other perks. Academics who never publish or attend conferences are sometimes criticized as being "deadwood." The situation is sometimes reversed in community colleges, where teachers are more valued for their teaching skills than their research and/or publishing prowess.

Now, the best peer reviewers are those who (a) have extensive knowledge of the subject at hand, and (b) work very hard to help the author improve the document. This means that the reviewer will provide a long list of very details tips and suggestions for the author.

When you write a peer review for a student, the process is different, but alike in principle. While you will not be "accepting" or "rejecting" a piece, you will work hard to help the author improve a document. Doing that requires attention to the following criteria:

• Focus: Is the document on-topic? Has the author followed the instructions for the assignment? Does the author stay focused on one topic, or stray off the mark? Is the topic too broad or too narrow? Is the topic "insightful" or obvious and not creative?
• Development: Is the document of sufficient length? Does the author make good points and offer sufficient detail to support each claim? Does the offered evidence logically support the claim? Will the audience be able to understand all the points and terms in the document? Is the document well-thought out, or does it seem shallow and poorly reasoned?
• Organization: Do the paragraphs and points follow one another in a sensible and recognizable scheme, or do things seem jumbled and out of order? Does the introduction accurately sum up the document and include a thesis statement? Are the paragraps focused on a single topic? Are there good transitions between sentences and paragraphs? Does the conclusion sum up the main points and/or provide a good call to action?
• Style: Are the sentences written in a clear, direct manner without unnecessary verbiage or needlessly complex, confusing, or convulted sentence structures? Are the word choices appropriate for the audience? Does the author include slang or informal terms that distract or take away from the integrity of the document? Does the author speak respectfully, sincerely, and maturely to the audience? Has the author used the informal pronoun "YOU" in the document? Are there sentences that could be re-written to make them clearer?
• Conventions: Does the document contain grammatical or mechanical errors? If so, what can be done to fix them? Can you identify patterns of error, or did the author simply not proofread well enough?

How do you submit a peer review?

There are two parts to the peer review. One is the "Commentary" section and the other consists of in-text comments. The commentary section will include a paragraph or two covering the above items (focus, development, etc) in general. The in-text comments will consist of "comments" or "notes" placed directly into the document.

Step-by-step instructions:

1. Login to http://my.usf.edu and go to the appropriate class and discussion board. You should see a list of student documents there:


2. Choose a document that doesn't already have two reviews. If all of the papers have two reviews, you will add a third.

3. Click on the thread and you should see the author's letter to the peer reviewers and an attachment that contains a Word .doc file. Read the letter, then click on the "attachment" and download the document to your computer or disk.


4. Load the document into Microsoft Word and begin making comments. To make a comment, highlight the text you want to comment on and then click (on the top menu) INSERT and COMMENT. If the comment pertains to focus, put an F: in front of your comment; if it's about conventions, use a C: (and so on). It should look something like this:


5. When you have finished making comments, save your document, then go back to the Blackboard discussion board and click REPLY to the author's original post. In the message box, write out your commentary about focus, development, etc., as outlined above. For each criteria, write (a) a description of what's there and (b) a prescription of what can be done to improve the area. So, perhaps for Focus, say, you should describe what the paper is focused on and how well the author sticks to it. The prescription part will contain advice for ways to improve the focus. If you're happy with the focus, explain why. Remember: The commentary you write in the message box should be general comments about the paper; the in-text comments should be about specific things.

Finally, attach your commented-version to the bottom using the "ATTACHMENT" feature.

Remember, you are responsible for writing 2 peer reviews. To get full credit, your reviews must be thorough and descriptive. If you need general help, consult this Powerpoint lecture I prepared last semester. If that doesn't answer your questions, post them below as comments.

---