Peer Reviewing for Graduate Students
Guidance on Providing Feedback on Course Writing (and Beyond)
Long an important aspect of the research process, peer review can be a valuable educational exercise which offers authors critical feedback, affords reviewers constructive criticism practice, and helps foster a more collaborative learning environment. As with any aspect of graduate-level writing, effective peer reviewing is a learned skill. And, conducting a peer review can be an unclear, confusing, and/or intimidating responsibility without proper guidance.
This post offers basic guidance for giving effective peer review feedback on graduate level writing, in four parts (i) how to approach a peer review, (ii) how to conduct a peer review, (iii) how to write peer review feedback, and (iv) how to receive peer review feedback.
How to Approach a Peer Review
Perhaps the most important factor shaping the success (or usefulness) of a peer review is the intention with which it is undertaken. Approach the peer review responsibility as more than just a critic; yours is a job of constructive co-learning and improvement. Attempt to write a review that empowers the author to develop a more effective, insightful, compelling, or persuasive piece of writing — and to become a stronger thinker and writer, overall.
To this end, focus on constructive criticism, defined as feedback that takes the form of specific, actionable suggestions. Instead of simply identifying problems, or limiting suggestions to general advice, constructive criticism outlines specific recommendations on how to one can strengthen or otherwise improve a piece of writing. It should be clear, to the point, and easy to enact.
From a practical perspective, it can be helpful to have one or more check list to reference as you review. Examples include Wiley’s section-by-section guidance or this peer review workflow for assessing the content of an academic journal submission. My grad school writing guidelines offer reference checklists for basic writing principles and practices.
How to Conduct a Peer Review
Similar to reviewing journal manuscripts, I suggest at least three “readings,” with each focusing on a different dimension of the paper (outlined below). Take notes throughout. Although you’ll probably make comments directly on the document (annotations can offer valuable specific feedback, as discussed below), jot down your thoughts, questions, or critiques on a separate document, such that they can later be incorporated in written feedback. Categorize all notes or comments as “minor” or “major” — minor critiques are those which can be easily explained and corrected, while major ones take considerable time to explain and even more time to correct.
Reading #1 | The Overview
The first reading is quick and strategic — aimed at getting a sense of the paper’s objective(s) and means for achieving it (or them). Begin by reading the paper’s abstract/executive summary, introduction, and conclusion. Next, scan the body of the paper, making note of paper sections, headings, and subheadings, to become familiar with how the argument or examination is organized. Finally, skim the introductory paragraphs of each section and any tables or figures (i.e., graphs, charts, or diagrams), developing a basic understanding of their contents.
After the first reading, outline the article by writing down your understanding of the paper’s objectives and means for achieving them. At this point, you should have an understanding of the paper’s topic, objectives, and the rationales of both — i.e., why the topic is worth attention and the objective is worth pursuing. Make note if any of these are missing or unclear, as well as any other questions or concerns that you have at this point.
Reading #2 | The Content Critique
The second reading is a close examination of the paper’s content, in which you will focus on the conceptual and/or empirical “nuts and bolts” of the paper. Pay particular attention to (i) the paper’s central question or argument (i.e., thesis), (ii) the ideas, claims, and/or evidence that it draws on to answer the question/support the thesis, and (iii) the logical connections and “fit” between these elements. If the paper is a research paper, are the author’s conclusions justified by the data provided? If the paper is argumentative, is the author’s thesis substantiated by the logic and evidence offered? Make note of any logic leaps, questionable or unsubstantiated claims, and/or clauses that require more development or elaboration.
Reading #3 | The Craft Critique
The final reading is a close examination of writing craft. Scrutinize the paper’s organization, including its internal structure and that of its sections, paragraphs, and sentences. Assess the appropriateness of the language used (not too informal nor obscured by jargon), and effectiveness of tables, figures, quotations, and other forms of illustration or evidence. While it is not your responsibility to copyedit the paper, point out systemic or reoccurring issues related to spelling or grammar. See my grad school writing guidelines for a list of writing elements to pay attention to.
How to Write Peer Review Feedback
After completing the three readings outlined above, you should have a list of comments, questions, and associated on-document annotations. Take some time to organize, frame, and elaborate on your notes to offer the author the most useful feedback possible. Your feedback should incorporate the following elements:
Review Intro & Summary
Begin your review with a short introductory paragraph (or two) that orients the author to the review with a constructive tone. Offer a concise and straight-forward assessment of the paper. Identify major strengths, smaller elements that stood out to you, and other things you enjoyed. Instruct the author on how to read the review — for example, by highlighting annotated comments on a separate document or explaining how your feedback is organized (e.g., most important comments to least).
Paper Summary
Next, add a one-paragraph paper overview based on your first reading outline, describing the paper’s objectives and means as you understand them. Make brief note of challenges you faced identifying the paper’s objectives and/or means, but don’t spend too much space elaborating on them (leave that for the comment/suggestion section of your feedback). This paragraph is meant to give the author insight into how someone else interpreted what they wrote, allowing them to make changes, as necessary.
Major & Minor Comments & Suggestions (i.e., Constructive Feedback)
Of course, the bulk of your review feedback will take the form of comments on paper weaknesses (areas for development) and suggestions for improvement. Divide your comments/suggestions into two subsections — major comments/suggestions and minor comments/suggestions — following the categorization of your notes into major and minor critiques (as described above). There are several ways you might organize the review within these subsections (e.g., in order of appearance or by section), but the one I find most effective is to number comments/suggestions and present them from more important to less. I typically end the review comments/suggestions with my suggestions for minor stylistic changes (e.g., nuanced changes to language, table formatting details, etc.) which have little impact on the substance of the paper.
Annotated Feedback
Finally, link your feedback comments and suggestions to the annotated comments you made as you read. If you haven’t already made annotations, do so using Microsoft Word track changes or Google Docs comments and edit suggestions (or their equivalent in a different format). Use annotated comments to identify the location of issues raised by specific comments, or to indicate an illustration or example of a recurrent issue (e.g. a reoccurring structural or organizational issue, grammatical error, spelling mistake, etc.). For some suggestions, it may be easiest to suggest the change(s) you suggest by editing the document directly (in track changes or editing mode).
How to Receive Peer Review Feedback
If a reviewer’s intention is the most important factor shaping the success (or usefulness) of a peer review, how an author receives the feedback is the second. As an author reading/receiving feedback, remind yourself that peer review is intended to be a process of co-learning and improvement. As explained above, the reviewer’s comments are opportunities for you to develop a more effective, insightful, compelling, or persuasive piece of writing — and to become a stronger thinker and writer, overall.
Even the most analytical writing is a creative and emotional exercise. As such, even constructive criticism can be hard to take and kindly-delivered critiques can sting. I find it helpful to read a peer review and then “set aside” the piece of writing for at least a day (and usually longer) before attempting to address criticisms or implement suggestions. Critiques that I initially found ignorant, callous, or offensive often become insightful and helpful when re-read 24 or 48 hours later.
Finally, be aware of the tendency to question or reject comments and suggestions based on perceptions of a reviewer’s (lack of) expertise. If the reviewer indicates they they do not understand something, assume the way you explained it caused or contributed to their confusion. Similarly, if the reviewer seems to have “overlooked” something, assume that the way you present it can be improved. A near-universal goal of most writing is clear and accessible communication, making the feedback of the uninitiated reader just as — if not more — useful than that from a subject-matter expert.
