good essay peer review

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections

How to Write a Peer Review

When you write a peer review for a manuscript, what should you include in your comments? What should you leave out? And how should the review be formatted?

This guide provides quick tips for writing and organizing your reviewer report.

Review Outline

Use an outline for your reviewer report so it’s easy for the editors and author to follow. This will also help you keep your comments organized.

Think about structuring your review like an inverted pyramid. Put the most important information at the top, followed by details and examples in the center, and any additional points at the very bottom.

Here’s how your outline might look:

1. Summary of the research and your overall impression

In your own words, summarize what the manuscript claims to report. This shows the editor how you interpreted the manuscript and will highlight any major differences in perspective between you and the other reviewers. Give an overview of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses. Think about this as your “take-home” message for the editors. End this section with your recommended course of action.

2. Discussion of specific areas for improvement

It’s helpful to divide this section into two parts: one for major issues and one for minor issues. Within each section, you can talk about the biggest issues first or go systematically figure-by-figure or claim-by-claim. Number each item so that your points are easy to follow (this will also make it easier for the authors to respond to each point). Refer to specific lines, pages, sections, or figure and table numbers so the authors (and editors) know exactly what you’re talking about.

Major vs. minor issues

What’s the difference between a major and minor issue? Major issues should consist of the essential points the authors need to address before the manuscript can proceed. Make sure you focus on what is  fundamental for the current study . In other words, it’s not helpful to recommend additional work that would be considered the “next step” in the study. Minor issues are still important but typically will not affect the overall conclusions of the manuscript. Here are some examples of what would might go in the “minor” category:

• Missing references (but depending on what is missing, this could also be a major issue)
• Technical clarifications (e.g., the authors should clarify how a reagent works)
• Data presentation (e.g., the authors should present p-values differently)
• Typos, spelling, grammar, and phrasing issues

3. Any other points

Confidential comments for the editors.

Some journals have a space for reviewers to enter confidential comments about the manuscript. Use this space to mention concerns about the submission that you’d want the editors to consider before sharing your feedback with the authors, such as concerns about ethical guidelines or language quality. Any serious issues should be raised directly and immediately with the journal as well.

This section is also where you will disclose any potentially competing interests, and mention whether you’re willing to look at a revised version of the manuscript.

Do not use this space to critique the manuscript, since comments entered here will not be passed along to the authors.  If you’re not sure what should go in the confidential comments, read the reviewer instructions or check with the journal first before submitting your review. If you are reviewing for a journal that does not offer a space for confidential comments, consider writing to the editorial office directly with your concerns.

Get this outline in a template

Giving Feedback

Giving feedback is hard. Giving effective feedback can be even more challenging. Remember that your ultimate goal is to discuss what the authors would need to do in order to qualify for publication. The point is not to nitpick every piece of the manuscript. Your focus should be on providing constructive and critical feedback that the authors can use to improve their study.

If you’ve ever had your own work reviewed, you already know that it’s not always easy to receive feedback. Follow the golden rule: Write the type of review you’d want to receive if you were the author. Even if you decide not to identify yourself in the review, you should write comments that you would be comfortable signing your name to.

In your comments, use phrases like “ the authors’ discussion of X” instead of “ your discussion of X .” This will depersonalize the feedback and keep the focus on the manuscript instead of the authors.

General guidelines for effective feedback

• Justify your recommendation with concrete evidence and specific examples.
• Be specific so the authors know what they need to do to improve.
• Be thorough. This might be the only time you read the manuscript.
• Be professional and respectful. The authors will be reading these comments too.
• Remember to say what you liked about the manuscript!

Don’t

• Recommend additional experiments or  unnecessary elements that are out of scope for the study or for the journal criteria.
• Tell the authors exactly how to revise their manuscript—you don’t need to do their work for them.
• Use the review to promote your own research or hypotheses.
• Focus on typos and grammar. If the manuscript needs significant editing for language and writing quality, just mention this in your comments.
• Submit your review without proofreading it and checking everything one more time.

Before and After: Sample Reviewer Comments

Keeping in mind the guidelines above, how do you put your thoughts into words? Here are some sample “before” and “after” reviewer comments

✗ Before

“The authors appear to have no idea what they are talking about. I don’t think they have read any of the literature on this topic.”

✓ After

“The study fails to address how the findings relate to previous research in this area. The authors should rewrite their Introduction and Discussion to reference the related literature, especially recently published work such as Darwin et al.”

“The writing is so bad, it is practically unreadable. I could barely bring myself to finish it.”

“While the study appears to be sound, the language is unclear, making it difficult to follow. I advise the authors work with a writing coach or copyeditor to improve the flow and readability of the text.”

“It’s obvious that this type of experiment should have been included. I have no idea why the authors didn’t use it. This is a big mistake.”

“The authors are off to a good start, however, this study requires additional experiments, particularly [type of experiment]. Alternatively, the authors should include more information that clarifies and justifies their choice of methods.”

Suggested Language for Tricky Situations

You might find yourself in a situation where you’re not sure how to explain the problem or provide feedback in a constructive and respectful way. Here is some suggested language for common issues you might experience.

What you think : The manuscript is fatally flawed. What you could say: “The study does not appear to be sound” or “the authors have missed something crucial”.

What you think : You don’t completely understand the manuscript. What you could say : “The authors should clarify the following sections to avoid confusion…”

What you think : The technical details don’t make sense. What you could say : “The technical details should be expanded and clarified to ensure that readers understand exactly what the researchers studied.”

What you think: The writing is terrible. What you could say : “The authors should revise the language to improve readability.”

What you think : The authors have over-interpreted the findings. What you could say : “The authors aim to demonstrate [XYZ], however, the data does not fully support this conclusion. Specifically…”

What does a good review look like?

Check out the peer review examples at F1000 Research to see how other reviewers write up their reports and give constructive feedback to authors.

Time to Submit the Review!

Be sure you turn in your report on time. Need an extension? Tell the journal so that they know what to expect. If you need a lot of extra time, the journal might need to contact other reviewers or notify the author about the delay.

Tip: Building a relationship with an editor

You’ll be more likely to be asked to review again if you provide high-quality feedback and if you turn in the review on time. Especially if it’s your first review for a journal, it’s important to show that you are reliable. Prove yourself once and you’ll get asked to review again!

• Getting started as a reviewer
• Responding to an invitation
• Reading a manuscript
• Writing a peer review

The contents of the Peer Review Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

The contents of the Writing Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples

What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples

Published on December 17, 2021 by Tegan George . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Peer review, sometimes referred to as refereeing , is the process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Using strict criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decides whether to accept each submission for publication.

Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to the stringent process they go through before publication.

There are various types of peer review. The main difference between them is to what extent the authors, reviewers, and editors know each other’s identities. The most common types are:

• Single-blind review
• Double-blind review
• Triple-blind review

Collaborative review

Open review.

Relatedly, peer assessment is a process where your peers provide you with feedback on something you’ve written, based on a set of criteria or benchmarks from an instructor. They then give constructive feedback, compliments, or guidance to help you improve your draft.

Table of contents

What is the purpose of peer review, types of peer review, the peer review process, providing feedback to your peers, peer review example, advantages of peer review, criticisms of peer review, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about peer reviews.

Many academic fields use peer review, largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the manuscript. For this reason, academic journals are among the most credible sources you can refer to.

However, peer review is also common in non-academic settings. The United Nations, the European Union, and many individual nations use peer review to evaluate grant applications. It is also widely used in medical and health-related fields as a teaching or quality-of-care measure.

Peer assessment is often used in the classroom as a pedagogical tool. Both receiving feedback and providing it are thought to enhance the learning process, helping students think critically and collaboratively.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Depending on the journal, there are several types of peer review.

Single-blind peer review

The most common type of peer review is single-blind (or single anonymized) review . Here, the names of the reviewers are not known by the author.

While this gives the reviewers the ability to give feedback without the possibility of interference from the author, there has been substantial criticism of this method in the last few years. Many argue that single-blind reviewing can lead to poaching or intellectual theft or that anonymized comments cause reviewers to be too harsh.

Double-blind peer review

In double-blind (or double anonymized) review , both the author and the reviewers are anonymous.

Arguments for double-blind review highlight that this mitigates any risk of prejudice on the side of the reviewer, while protecting the nature of the process. In theory, it also leads to manuscripts being published on merit rather than on the reputation of the author.

Triple-blind peer review

While triple-blind (or triple anonymized) review —where the identities of the author, reviewers, and editors are all anonymized—does exist, it is difficult to carry out in practice.

Proponents of adopting triple-blind review for journal submissions argue that it minimizes potential conflicts of interest and biases. However, ensuring anonymity is logistically challenging, and current editing software is not always able to fully anonymize everyone involved in the process.

In collaborative review , authors and reviewers interact with each other directly throughout the process. However, the identity of the reviewer is not known to the author. This gives all parties the opportunity to resolve any inconsistencies or contradictions in real time, and provides them a rich forum for discussion. It can mitigate the need for multiple rounds of editing and minimize back-and-forth.

Collaborative review can be time- and resource-intensive for the journal, however. For these collaborations to occur, there has to be a set system in place, often a technological platform, with staff monitoring and fixing any bugs or glitches.

Lastly, in open review , all parties know each other’s identities throughout the process. Often, open review can also include feedback from a larger audience, such as an online forum, or reviewer feedback included as part of the final published product.

While many argue that greater transparency prevents plagiarism or unnecessary harshness, there is also concern about the quality of future scholarship if reviewers feel they have to censor their comments.

In general, the peer review process includes the following steps:

• First, the author submits the manuscript to the editor.
• Reject the manuscript and send it back to the author, or
• Send it onward to the selected peer reviewer(s)
• Next, the peer review process occurs. The reviewer provides feedback, addressing any major or minor issues with the manuscript, and gives their advice regarding what edits should be made.
• Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits and resubmit it to the editor for publication.

In an effort to be transparent, many journals are now disclosing who reviewed each article in the published product. There are also increasing opportunities for collaboration and feedback, with some journals allowing open communication between reviewers and authors.

It can seem daunting at first to conduct a peer review or peer assessment. If you’re not sure where to start, there are several best practices you can use.

Summarize the argument in your own words

Summarizing the main argument helps the author see how their argument is interpreted by readers, and gives you a jumping-off point for providing feedback. If you’re having trouble doing this, it’s a sign that the argument needs to be clearer, more concise, or worded differently.

If the author sees that you’ve interpreted their argument differently than they intended, they have an opportunity to address any misunderstandings when they get the manuscript back.

Separate your feedback into major and minor issues

It can be challenging to keep feedback organized. One strategy is to start out with any major issues and then flow into the more minor points. It’s often helpful to keep your feedback in a numbered list, so the author has concrete points to refer back to.

Major issues typically consist of any problems with the style, flow, or key points of the manuscript. Minor issues include spelling errors, citation errors, or other smaller, easy-to-apply feedback.

Tip: Try not to focus too much on the minor issues. If the manuscript has a lot of typos, consider making a note that the author should address spelling and grammar issues, rather than going through and fixing each one.

The best feedback you can provide is anything that helps them strengthen their argument or resolve major stylistic issues.

Give the type of feedback that you would like to receive

No one likes being criticized, and it can be difficult to give honest feedback without sounding overly harsh or critical. One strategy you can use here is the “compliment sandwich,” where you “sandwich” your constructive criticism between two compliments.

Be sure you are giving concrete, actionable feedback that will help the author submit a successful final draft. While you shouldn’t tell them exactly what they should do, your feedback should help them resolve any issues they may have overlooked.

As a rule of thumb, your feedback should be:

• Easy to understand
• Constructive

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Below is a brief annotated research example. You can view examples of peer feedback by hovering over the highlighted sections.

Influence of phone use on sleep

Studies show that teens from the US are getting less sleep than they were a decade ago (Johnson, 2019) . On average, teens only slept for 6 hours a night in 2021, compared to 8 hours a night in 2011. Johnson mentions several potential causes, such as increased anxiety, changed diets, and increased phone use.

The current study focuses on the effect phone use before bedtime has on the number of hours of sleep teens are getting.

For this study, a sample of 300 teens was recruited using social media, such as Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. The first week, all teens were allowed to use their phone the way they normally would, in order to obtain a baseline.

The sample was then divided into 3 groups:

• Group 1 was not allowed to use their phone before bedtime.
• Group 2 used their phone for 1 hour before bedtime.
• Group 3 used their phone for 3 hours before bedtime.

All participants were asked to go to sleep around 10 p.m. to control for variation in bedtime . In the morning, their Fitbit showed the number of hours they’d slept. They kept track of these numbers themselves for 1 week.

Two independent t tests were used in order to compare Group 1 and Group 2, and Group 1 and Group 3. The first t test showed no significant difference ( p > .05) between the number of hours for Group 1 ( M = 7.8, SD = 0.6) and Group 2 ( M = 7.0, SD = 0.8). The second t test showed a significant difference ( p < .01) between the average difference for Group 1 ( M = 7.8, SD = 0.6) and Group 3 ( M = 6.1, SD = 1.5).

This shows that teens sleep fewer hours a night if they use their phone for over an hour before bedtime, compared to teens who use their phone for 0 to 1 hours.

Peer review is an established and hallowed process in academia, dating back hundreds of years. It provides various fields of study with metrics, expectations, and guidance to ensure published work is consistent with predetermined standards.

• Protects the quality of published research

Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. Any content that raises red flags for reviewers can be closely examined in the review stage, preventing plagiarized or duplicated research from being published.

• Gives you access to feedback from experts in your field

Peer review represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field and to improve your writing through their feedback and guidance. Experts with knowledge about your subject matter can give you feedback on both style and content, and they may also suggest avenues for further research that you hadn’t yet considered.

• Helps you identify any weaknesses in your argument

Peer review acts as a first defense, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process. This way, you’ll end up with a more robust, more cohesive article.

While peer review is a widely accepted metric for credibility, it’s not without its drawbacks.

• Reviewer bias

The more transparent double-blind system is not yet very common, which can lead to bias in reviewing. A common criticism is that an excellent paper by a new researcher may be declined, while an objectively lower-quality submission by an established researcher would be accepted.

• Delays in publication

The thoroughness of the peer review process can lead to significant delays in publishing time. Research that was current at the time of submission may not be as current by the time it’s published. There is also high risk of publication bias , where journals are more likely to publish studies with positive findings than studies with negative findings.

• Risk of human error

By its very nature, peer review carries a risk of human error. In particular, falsification often cannot be detected, given that reviewers would have to replicate entire experiments to ensure the validity of results.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Thematic analysis
• Discourse analysis
• Cohort study
• Ethnography

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Conformity bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Availability heuristic
• Attrition bias
• Social desirability bias

Peer review is a process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Utilizing rigorous criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decide whether to accept each submission for publication. For this reason, academic journals are often considered among the most credible sources you can use in a research project– provided that the journal itself is trustworthy and well-regarded.

In general, the peer review process follows the following steps: 

• Reject the manuscript and send it back to author, or 
• Send it onward to the selected peer reviewer(s) 
• Next, the peer review process occurs. The reviewer provides feedback, addressing any major or minor issues with the manuscript, and gives their advice regarding what edits should be made. 
• Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits, and resubmit it to the editor for publication.

Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. It also represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field. It acts as a first defense, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process.

Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to this stringent process they go through before publication.

Many academic fields use peer review , largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the published manuscript.

However, peer review is also common in non-academic settings. The United Nations, the European Union, and many individual nations use peer review to evaluate grant applications. It is also widely used in medical and health-related fields as a teaching or quality-of-care measure. 

A credible source should pass the CRAAP test  and follow these guidelines:

• The information should be up to date and current.
• The author and publication should be a trusted authority on the subject you are researching.
• The sources the author cited should be easy to find, clear, and unbiased.
• For a web source, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

George, T. (2023, June 22). What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved March 20, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/peer-review/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, ethical considerations in research | types & examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

What makes a good or a bad peer review? Tips for excelling at reviewing

Dr rebecca sear tells us her opinion on what makes a good or bad review, and how new reviewers can succeed in this process..

Following on from her previous post on ‘ Tips for good practice in peer review ’, Dr Rebecca Sear , Head of the Department of Population Health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and Editorial Board member of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B , has given us some further thoughts about what makes a good or bad review, and how new reviewers can succeed in this process.

You’ve accepted your first peer review request, thoroughly read the paper, and are now sitting in front of a blank computer screen wondering what your peer review should look like. Here are my tips.

What does a good peer review look like?

1. Start with a (very) brief summary of the paper. This is a useful exercise for both reviewers and authors. If you struggle to summarise what the paper is about, that suggests the authors need to improve the clarity of their writing. It also lets the authors know what a reader took from their paper – which may not be what they intended!

2. Next, give the Editor an overview of what you thought of the paper. You will typically have to provide a recommendation (e.g. accept, revise or reject), but in the review itself you should give a summary of your reasons for this recommendation. Some examples:

• ‘the data appear appropriate for testing the authors’ hypothesis but I have some concerns about the methods. If these can be fixed, then this should become a useful contribution to the literature’.
• ‘the authors’ have a clear research question and use appropriate methods, but their data are not suitable to provide an answer to their research question. Without additional data collection, this paper is not appropriate for publication’.

3. The rest of your review should provide detailed comments about the manuscript. It is most helpful to Editors and authors if this section is structured in some way. Many reviewers start with the major problems first, then list more minor comments afterwards. Major comments would be those which need to be addressed before the paper is publishable and/or which will take substantial work to resolve – such as concerns with the methodology or the authors’ interpretation of results. Minor comments could be recommendations for revisions that are not necessarily essential to make the paper publishable – for example, suggestions for additional literature to include, or cosmetic changes.

4. Remember that you have two audiences: the Editor and the authors. Authors need to know what was good about the paper and where improvements could be made. The Editor needs to know if you think the manuscript is a publishable piece of work. Bear in mind that different journals have different criteria for what makes a paper publishable – this information should be accessible on the journal webpage, or you might have been sent guidance to help with this when you accepted the invitation to review.

5. Your review should be clear, constructive and consistent.

• Clarity is important because authors will not be able to respond to your concerns if they don’t fully understand what they are.
• Reviews are most helpful if they don’t just criticise, but also make constructive suggestions for how concerns may be resolved.
• Your overall recommendation should be consistent with your comments. There is likely to be an opportunity to provide confidential comments to the Editor to provide further context or justification for your recommendation, but don’t include comments here that are completely different from the main messages of your review. The Editor needs to be able to justify their final decision to the authors using the reviewer comments as part of their evidence.

6. Don’t be afraid to highlight good things about the paper – a good review does not just criticise but also highlights what the authors have done well.

7. Your review should always be polite; it is unprofessional to use derogatory language or take a harsh or sarcastic tone (and remember that even if reviewer names are blinded to authors, the Editor knows who you are…). Write the review in a tone you would be happy to receive.

What does a bad review look like?

1. One which uses insulting or unprofessional language.

2. An unstructured stream of consciousness, which lists many concerns but without any indication of which are the most serious.

3. One in which the comments are too brief for the Editor to understand what you liked or didn’t like about the paper.

4. One which doesn’t justify its recommendation, or makes a recommendation which is not reflected in the comments. The Editor needs to know why you came to the recommendation you did.

5. One which insists on unnecessary revisions – maybe the paper would be improved by another seven experiments, but that’s not relevant to the question of whether the paper you have in front of you is publishable. You should feel free to make suggestions about additional work that you think might improve the paper, but don’t insist on this unless the paper in front of you isn’t publishable without it.

6. One which makes unreasonable demands. Think about how the authors are going to respond to your concerns, and only recommend changes which are feasible.

Peer reviewing is an opportunity to improve the quality of published research, and is very valuable to the research process when it works well. I hope these tips are helpful for making the process as efficient (and painless!) as possible.

The full slide set for Rebecca’s training course on ‘Good practice in peer review’, which also includes links to useful online resources.

Visit our website  for more information on reviewing for the Royal Society’s journals.

Dr Rebecca Sear

Helen Eaton

Head of the Department of Population Health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine

Senior Commissioning Editor, the Royal Society

Related blogs

Buchi Okereafor

In publishing

AI and the future of scholarly publishing (part 1)

The focus for this year's Peer Review Week is 'Peer Review and the Future of Publishing'. We speak…

AI and the future of scholarly publishing (part 2)

Matt Hodgkinson, Research Integrity Manager at the UK Research Integrity Office, gives us an…

Callum Shoosmith

The future of peer review in the 17th Century

For Peer Review Week 2023 we explore the Royal Society’s collection of centuries-old referee…

Email updates

We promote excellence in science so that, together, we can benefit humanity and tackle the biggest challenges of our time.

Subscribe to our newsletters to be updated with the latest news on innovation, events, articles and reports.

What subscription are you interested in receiving? (Choose at least one subject)

How to Write a Peer Review: 12 things you need to know

Joanna Wilkinson

Learning how to peer review is no small feat. You’re responsible for protecting the public from false findings and research flaws, while at the same time helping to uncover legitimate breakthroughs. You’re also asked to constructively critique the research of your peers, some of which has taken blood, sweat, tears and years to put together.

Despite this, peer review doesn’t need to be hard or nerve-wracking–or make you feel like you’re doomed to fail.

We’ve put together  12 tips to help with peer review , and you can learn the entire process with our free peer review training course, the  Web of Science Academy . This on-demand, practical course and comes with one-to-one support with your own mentor. You’ll have exclusive access to our peer review template, plenty of expert review examples to learn from, and by the end of it, you’ll not only be a certified reviewer, we’ll help put you in front of editors in your field.

The peer review process

Journal peer review is a critical tool for ensuring the quality and integrity of the research literature. It is the process by which researchers use their expert knowledge of a topic to assess an article for its accuracy and rigor, and to help make sure it builds on and adds to the current literature.

It’s actually a very structured process; it can be learned and improved the more you do it, and you’ll become faster and more confident as time goes on. Soon enough, you’ll even start benefiting from the process yourself.

Peer review not only helps to maintain the quality and integrity of literature in your field, it’s key to your own development as a researcher. It’s a great way to keep abreast of current research, impress editors at elite journals, and hone your critical analysis skills. It teaches you how to  review a manuscript ,  spot common flaws in research papers , and improve your own chances of being a  successful published author .

12-step guide to writing a peer review

To get the most out of the peer review process, you’ll want to keep some best practice tips and techniques in mind from the start. This will help you write a review around two to three pages (four maximum) in length.

We asked an expert panel of researchers what steps they take to ensure a thorough and robust review. We then compiled their advice into 12 easy steps with link to blog posts for further information:

1)   Make sure you have the right expertise.  Check out our post,  Are you the right reviewer?  for our checklist to assess whether you should take on a certain peer review request.

2)   Visit the journal web page to learn their reviewer-specific instructions.  Check the manuscript fits in the journal format and the references are standardised (if the editor has not already done so).

3)   Skim the paper very quickly to get a general sense of the article.  Underline key words and arguments, and summarise key points. This will help you quickly “tune in” to the paper during the next read.

4)   Sit in a quiet place and read the manuscript critically.  Make sure you have the tables, figures and references visible. Ask yourself key questions, including: Does it have a relevant title and valuable research question? Are key papers referenced? What’s the author’s motivation for the study and the idea behind it? Are the data and tools suitable and correct? What’s new about it? Why does that matter? Are there other considerations? Find out more in our  12-step guide to critically reviewing a manuscript .

5)   Take notes about the major, moderate and minor revisions that need to be made . You need to make sure you can put the paper down and come back to it with fresh eyes later on. Note-taking is essential for this.

6)   Are there any methodological concerns or common research errors?  Check out our guide for  common research flaws to watch out for .

7)   Create a list of things to check.  For example, does the referenced study actually show what is claimed in the paper?

8)   Assess language and grammar, and make sure it’s a right ‘fit’ for the journal.  Does the paper flow? Does it have connectivity? Does it have clarity? Are the words and structure concise and effective?

9)   Is it new research?  Check previous publications of the authors and of other authors in the field to be sure that the results were not published before.

10)   Summarise your notes for the editor.  This can include overview, contribution, strengths & weaknesses, and acceptability. You can also include the manuscript’s contribution/context for the authors (really just to clarify whether you view it similarly, or not), then prioritise and collate the major revisions and minor/specific revisions into feedback. Try to compile this in a logical way, grouping similar things under a common heading where possible, and numbering them for ease of reference.

11)   Give specific recommendations to the authors for changes.  What do you want them to work on? in the manuscript that the authors can do.

12)  Give your recommendation to the editor.

We hope these 12 steps help get you on your way for your first peer review, or improving the structure of your current reviews. And remember, if you’d like to master the skills involved in peer review and get access to our Peer Review Template, sign up for our  Web of Science Academy .

Our expert panel of reviewers include:  Ana Marie Florea  (Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf),  James Cotter  (University of Otago), and  Robert Faff  (University of Queensland). These reviewers are all recipients of the Global Peer Review Awards powered by Publons. They also and boast hundreds of pre-publication peer reviews for more than 100 different journals and sit on numerous editorial boards.

Related posts

Unlocking u.k. research excellence: key insights from the research professional news live summit.

For better insights, assess research performance at the department level

Getting the Full Picture: Institutional unification in the Web of Science

The Savvy Scientist

Experiences of a London PhD student and beyond

My Complete Guide to Academic Peer Review: Example Comments & How to Make Paper Revisions

Once you’ve submitted your paper to an academic journal you’re in the nerve-racking position of waiting to hear back about the fate of your work. In this post we’ll cover everything from potential responses you could receive from the editor and example peer review comments through to how to submit revisions.

My first first-author paper was reviewed by five (yes 5!) reviewers and since then I’ve published several others papers, so now I want to share the insights I’ve gained which will hopefully help you out!

This post is part of my series to help with writing and publishing your first academic journal paper. You can find the whole series here: Writing an academic journal paper .

The Peer Review Process

When you submit a paper to a journal, the first thing that will happen is one of the editorial team will do an initial assessment of whether or not the article is of interest. They may decide for a number of reasons that the article isn’t suitable for the journal and may reject the submission before even sending it out to reviewers.

If this happens hopefully they’ll have let you know quickly so that you can move on and make a start targeting a different journal instead.

Handy way to check the status – Sign in to the journal’s submission website and have a look at the status of your journal article online. If you can see that the article is under review then you’ve passed that first hurdle!

When your paper is under peer review, the journal will have set out a framework to help the reviewers assess your work. Generally they’ll be deciding whether the work is to a high enough standard.

Interested in reading about what reviewers are looking for? Check out my post on being a reviewer for the first time. Peer-Reviewing Journal Articles: Should You Do It? Sharing What I Learned From My First Experiences .

Once the reviewers have made their assessments, they’ll return their comments and suggestions to the editor who will then decide how the article should proceed.

How Many People Review Each Paper?

The editor ideally wants a clear decision from the reviewers as to whether the paper should be accepted or rejected. If there is no consensus among the reviewers then the editor may send your paper out to more reviewers to better judge whether or not to accept the paper.

If you’ve got a lot of reviewers on your paper it isn’t necessarily that the reviewers disagreed about accepting your paper.

You can also end up with lots of reviewers in the following circumstance:

• The editor asks a certain academic to review the paper but doesn’t get a response from them
• The editor asks another academic to step in
• The initial reviewer then responds

Next thing you know your work is being scrutinised by extra pairs of eyes!

As mentioned in the intro, my first paper ended up with five reviewers!

Potential Journal Responses

Assuming that the paper passes the editor’s initial evaluation and is sent out for peer-review, here are the potential decisions you may receive:

• Reject the paper. Sadly the editor and reviewers decided against publishing your work. Hopefully they’ll have included feedback which you can incorporate into your submission to another journal. I’ve had some rejections and the reviewer comments were genuinely useful.
• Accept the paper with major revisions . Good news: with some more work your paper could get published. If you make all the changes that the reviewers suggest, and they’re happy with your responses, then it should get accepted. Some people see major revisions as a disappointment but it doesn’t have to be.
• Accept the paper with minor revisions. This is like getting a major revisions response but better! Generally minor revisions can be addressed quickly and often come down to clarifying things for the reviewers: rewording, addressing minor concerns etc and don’t require any more experiments or analysis. You stand a really good chance of getting the paper published if you’ve been given a minor revisions result.
• Accept the paper with no revisions . I’m not sure that this ever really happens, but it is potentially possible if the reviewers are already completely happy with your paper!

Keen to know more about academic publishing? My series on publishing is now available as a free eBook. It includes my experiences being a peer reviewer. Click the image below for access.

Example Peer Review Comments & Addressing Reviewer Feedback

If your paper has been accepted but requires revisions, the editor will forward to you the comments and concerns that the reviewers raised. You’ll have to address these points so that the reviewers are satisfied your work is of a publishable standard.

It is extremely important to take this stage seriously. If you don’t do a thorough job then the reviewers won’t recommend that your paper is accepted for publication!

You’ll have to put together a resubmission with your co-authors and there are two crucial things you must do:

• Make revisions to your manuscript based off reviewer comments
• Reply to the reviewers, telling them the changes you’ve made and potentially changes you’ve not made in instances where you disagree with them. Read on to see some example peer review comments and how I replied!

Before making any changes to your actual paper, I suggest having a thorough read through the reviewer comments.

Once you’ve read through the comments you might be keen to dive straight in and make the changes in your paper. Instead, I actually suggest firstly drafting your reply to the reviewers.

Why start with the reply to reviewers? Well in a way it is actually potentially more important than the changes you’re making in the manuscript.

Imagine when a reviewer receives your response to their comments: you want them to be able to read your reply document and be satisfied that their queries have largely been addressed without even having to open the updated draft of your manuscript. If you do a good job with the replies, the reviewers will be better placed to recommend the paper be accepted!

By starting with your reply to the reviewers you’ll also clarify for yourself what changes actually have to be made to the paper.

So let’s now cover how to reply to the reviewers.

1. Replying to Journal Reviewers

It is so important to make sure you do a solid job addressing your reviewers’ feedback in your reply document. If you leave anything unanswered you’re asking for trouble, which in this case means either a rejection or another round of revisions: though some journals only give you one shot! Therefore make sure you’re thorough, not just with making the changes but demonstrating the changes in your replies.

It’s no good putting in the work to revise your paper but not evidence it in your reply to the reviewers!

There may be points that reviewers raise which don’t appear to necessitate making changes to your manuscript, but this is rarely the case. Even for comments or concerns they raise which are already addressed in the paper, clearly those areas could be clarified or highlighted to ensure that future readers don’t get confused.

How to Reply to Journal Reviewers

Some journals will request a certain format for how you should structure a reply to the reviewers. If so this should be included in the email you receive from the journal’s editor. If there are no certain requirements here is what I do:

• Copy and paste all replies into a document.
• Separate out each point they raise onto a separate line. Often they’ll already be nicely numbered but sometimes they actually still raise separate issues in one block of text. I suggest separating it all out so that each query is addressed separately.
• Form your reply for each point that they raise. I start by just jotting down notes for roughly how I’ll respond. Once I’m happy with the key message I’ll write it up into a scripted reply.
• Finally, go through and format it nicely and include line number references for the changes you’ve made in the manuscript.

By the end you’ll have a document that looks something like:

Reviewer 1 Point 1: [Quote the reviewer’s comment] Response 1: [Address point 1 and say what revisions you’ve made to the paper] Point 2: [Quote the reviewer’s comment] Response 2: [Address point 2 and say what revisions you’ve made to the paper] Then repeat this for all comments by all reviewers!

What To Actually Include In Your Reply To Reviewers

For every single point raised by the reviewers, you should do the following:

• Address their concern: Do you agree or disagree with the reviewer’s comment? Either way, make your position clear and justify any differences of opinion. If the reviewer wants more clarity on an issue, provide it. It is really important that you actually address their concerns in your reply. Don’t just say “Thanks, we’ve changed the text”. Actually include everything they want to know in your reply. Yes this means you’ll be repeating things between your reply and the revisions to the paper but that’s fine.
• Reference changes to your manuscript in your reply. Once you’ve answered the reviewer’s question, you must show that you’re actually using this feedback to revise the manuscript. The best way to do this is to refer to where the changes have been made throughout the text. I personally do this by include line references. Make sure you save this right until the end once you’ve finished making changes!

Example Peer Review Comments & Author Replies

In order to understand how this works in practice I’d suggest reading through a few real-life example peer review comments and replies.

The good news is that published papers often now include peer-review records, including the reviewer comments and authors’ replies. So here are two feedback examples from my own papers:

Example Peer Review: Paper 1

Quantifying 3D Strain in Scaffold Implants for Regenerative Medicine, J. Clark et al. 2020 – Available here

This paper was reviewed by two academics and was given major revisions. The journal gave us only 10 days to get them done, which was a bit stressful!

• Reviewer Comments
• My reply to Reviewer 1
• My reply to Reviewer 2

One round of reviews wasn’t enough for Reviewer 2…

• My reply to Reviewer 2 – ROUND 2

Thankfully it was accepted after the second round of review, and actually ended up being selected for this accolade, whatever most notable means?!

Nice to see our recent paper highlighted as one of the most notable articles, great start to the week! Thanks @Materials_mdpi 😀 #openaccess & available here: https://t.co/AKWLcyUtpC @ICBiomechanics @julianrjones @saman_tavana pic.twitter.com/ciOX2vftVL — Jeff Clark (@savvy_scientist) December 7, 2020

Example Peer Review: Paper 2

Exploratory Full-Field Mechanical Analysis across the Osteochondral Tissue—Biomaterial Interface in an Ovine Model, J. Clark et al. 2020 – Available here

This paper was reviewed by three academics and was given minor revisions.

• My reply to Reviewer 3

I’m pleased to say it was accepted after the first round of revisions 🙂

Things To Be Aware Of When Replying To Peer Review Comments

• Generally, try to make a revision to your paper for every comment. No matter what the reviewer’s comment is, you can probably make a change to the paper which will improve your manuscript. For example, if the reviewer seems confused about something, improve the clarity in your paper. If you disagree with the reviewer, include better justification for your choices in the paper. It is far more favourable to take on board the reviewer’s feedback and act on it with actual changes to your draft.
• Organise your responses. Sometimes journals will request the reply to each reviewer is sent in a separate document. Unless they ask for it this way I stick them all together in one document with subheadings eg “Reviewer 1” etc.
• Make sure you address each and every question. If you dodge anything then the reviewer will have a valid reason to reject your resubmission. You don’t need to agree with them on every point but you do need to justify your position.
• Be courteous. No need to go overboard with compliments but stay polite as reviewers are providing constructive feedback. I like to add in “We thank the reviewer for their suggestion” every so often where it genuinely warrants it. Remember that written language doesn’t always carry tone very well, so rather than risk coming off as abrasive if I don’t agree with the reviewer’s suggestion I’d rather be generous with friendliness throughout the reply.

2. How to Make Revisions To Your Paper

Once you’ve drafted your replies to the reviewers, you’ve actually done a lot of the ground work for making changes to the paper. Remember, you are making changes to the paper based off the reviewer comments so you should regularly be referring back to the comments to ensure you’re not getting sidetracked.

Reviewers could request modifications to any part of your paper. You may need to collect more data, do more analysis, reformat some figures, add in more references or discussion or any number of other revisions! So I can’t really help with everything, even so here is some general advice:

• Use tracked-changes. This is so important. The editor and reviewers need to be able to see every single change you’ve made compared to your first submission. Sometimes the journal will want a clean copy too but always start with tracked-changes enabled then just save a clean copy afterwards.
• Be thorough . Try to not leave any opportunity for the reviewers to not recommend your paper to be published. Any chance you have to satisfy their concerns, take it. For example if the reviewers are concerned about sample size and you have the means to include other experiments, consider doing so. If they want to see more justification or references, be thorough. To be clear again, this doesn’t necessarily mean making changes you don’t believe in. If you don’t want to make a change, you can justify your position to the reviewers. Either way, be thorough.
• Use your reply to the reviewers as a guide. In your draft reply to the reviewers you should have already included a lot of details which can be incorporated into the text. If they raised a concern, you should be able to go and find references which address the concern. This reference should appear both in your reply and in the manuscript. As mentioned above I always suggest starting with the reply, then simply adding these details to your manuscript once you know what needs doing.

Putting Together Your Paper Revision Submission

• Once you’ve drafted your reply to the reviewers and revised manuscript, make sure to give sufficient time for your co-authors to give feedback. Also give yourself time afterwards to make changes based off of their feedback. I ideally give a week for the feedback and another few days to make the changes.
• When you’re satisfied that you’ve addressed the reviewer comments, you can think about submitting it. The journal may ask for another letter to the editor, if not I simply add to the top of the reply to reviewers something like:

“Dear [Editor], We are grateful to the reviewer for their positive and constructive comments that have led to an improved manuscript.  Here, we address their concerns/suggestions and have tracked changes throughout the revised manuscript.”

Once you’re ready to submit:

• Double check that you’ve done everything that the editor requested in their email
• Double check that the file names and formats are as required
• Triple check you’ve addressed the reviewer comments adequately
• Click submit and bask in relief!

You won’t always get the paper accepted, but if you’re thorough and present your revisions clearly then you’ll put yourself in a really good position. Remember to try as hard as possible to satisfy the reviewers’ concerns to minimise any opportunity for them to not accept your revisions!

Best of luck!

I really hope that this post has been useful to you and that the example peer review section has given you some ideas for how to respond. I know how daunting it can be to reply to reviewers, and it is really important to try to do a good job and give yourself the best chances of success. If you’d like to read other posts in my academic publishing series you can find them here:

Blog post series: Writing an academic journal paper

Subscribe below to stay up to date with new posts in the academic publishing series and other PhD content.

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)

Related Posts

Thesis Title: Examples and Suggestions from a PhD Grad

23rd February 2024 23rd February 2024

How to Stay Healthy as a Student

25th January 2024 25th January 2024

How to Master LinkedIn for Academics & PhD Students

22nd December 2023 22nd December 2023

2 Comments on “My Complete Guide to Academic Peer Review: Example Comments & How to Make Paper Revisions”

Excellent article! Thank you for the inspiration!

No worries at all, thanks for your kind comment!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Privacy Overview

• Peer Review System
• Production Service
• OA Publishing Platform
• Law Review System
• Why Scholastica?
• Customer Stories
• eBooks, Guides & More
• Schedule a demo
• Law Reviews
• Innovations In Academia
• New Features

Subscribe to receive posts by email

• Legal Scholarship
• Peer Review/Publishing
• I agree to the data use terms outlined in Scholastica's Privacy Policy Must agree to privacy policy.

How to Write Constructive Peer Review Comments: Tips every journal should give referees

Like the art of tightrope walking, writing helpful peer review comments requires honing the ability to traverse many fine lines.

Referees have to strike a balance between being too critical or too careful, too specific or too vague, too conclusive or too open-ended — and the list goes on. Regardless of the stage of a scholar’s career, learning how to write consistently constructive peer review comments takes time and practice.

Most scholars embark on peer review with little to no formal training. So a bit of guidance from journals before taking on assignments is often welcome and can make a big difference in review quality. In this blog post, we’re rounding up 7 tips journals can give referees to help them conduct solid peer reviews and deliver feedback effectively.

You can incorporate these tips into your journal reviewer guidelines and any training materials you prepare, or feel free to link reviewers straight to this blog post!

Take steps to avoid decision fatigue

Did you know that some sources suggest adults make upwards of 35,000 decisions per day ? Hard to believe, right?!

Whether that stat is indeed the norm, there’s no question that we humans make MANY choices on the regular, from what to wear and what route to take to work to avoid construction to which emails to respond to first and how to go about that really tricky research project in the midst of tackling usual tasks, meetings — and, well, everything else. And that’s all likely before 10 AM!

In his blog post “ How to Peer Review ,” Dr. Matthew Might, Professor in the Department of Medicine and Director of the Hugh Kaul Precision Medicine Institute at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, explained that over time the compounding mental strain of so much deliberation can result in a phenomenon known as decision fatigue . Decision fatigue is a deterioration in decision-making quality, which for busy peer reviewers can lead to writing less than articulate comments at best and missing critical points at worst.

In order to avoid decision fatigue, Might said scholars should try to work on peer reviews early in the day before they become bogged down with other matters. Additionally, he advises referees to work on no more than one review at a time when possible, or within one sitting at least, and to avoid reviewing when they feel tired or hungry. Taking steps to prevent decision fatigue can help scholars produce higher quality comments and, ultimately, write reviews faster because they’ll be working on them at times when they’re likely to be more focused and productive.

Of course, referees won’t always be able to follow every one of the above recommendations all of the time, nor will journal editors know if they have. But, it’s worth it for editors to remind reviewers to take decision fatigue into account before accepting and starting assignments.

Be cognizant of conscious and unconscious biases

Another decision-making factor that can cloud peer reviewers’ judgment that all editors should be hyper-attuned to is conscious and unconscious biases. Journal ethical guidelines are, of course, the first line of defense for preventing explicit biases. Every journal should have conflict of interest policies on when and how to disclose potential competing interests (e.g., financial ties, academic commitments, personal relationships) that could influence reviewers’ (as well as editors’ and authors’) level of objectivity in the publication process. The Committee on Publication Ethics offers many helpful guides for developing conflict of interest / competing interest statements, and medical journals can find a “summary of key elements for peer-reviewed medical journal’s conflict of interest policies” from The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) here .

But what about unconscious biases that could have potentially insidious impacts on peer reviews?

Journals can help curb implicit bias by following double-anonymized peer review processes. Though, as the editors of Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology acknowledged in an announcement about their decision to move to double-anonymized peer review, even when all parties’ identities are concealed “unintentional exposure of author or institution identity is sometimes unavoidable, such as in small, specialized fields or subsequent to early sharing of data at conferences.”

Truly tackling unconscious biases requires getting to their roots, starting with acknowledging that they exist. Journals should remind reviewers to be cognizant of the fact that everyone harbors implicit biases that could impact their decision-making, as IOPScience does here and Cambridge University Press does here and provide tips for spotting and addressing biases. IOP advises reviewers to “focus on facts rather than feelings, slow down your decision making, and consider and reconsider the reasons for your conclusions.” And CUP reminds referees that “rooting your review in evidence from the paper or proposal is crucial in avoiding bias.”

Journals can also offer unconscious bias prevention training or direct referees to available resources such as this recorded Peer Reviewer Unconscious Bias webinar from the American Heart Association.

Null or negative results aren’t a basis for rejection

Speaking of forms of bias that can affect the peer review process, “positive results bias” — or the tendency to want to accept and publish positive results rather than null or negative results — is a common one. In a Royal Society blog post on what makes a good peer review, Head of the Department of Population Health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Dr. Rebecca Sear, spoke to how positive results bias can throw a wrench in peer review. Speaking from the perspective of an author, editor, and reviewer, Sear said, “at worst, this distorts science by keeping valuable research out of the literature entirely. It also creates inefficiencies in the system when publishable research has to be submitted to multiple journals before publication, burdening several reviewers and editors with the costs of evaluating the same research. A further problem is that the anonymity typically given to peer reviewers can result in unprofessional behavior being unleashed on authors.”

Journals can help prevent positive results bias by clearly stating that recommendations regarding manuscript decisions should be made on the basis of the quality of the research question, methodology, and perceived accuracy (rather than positivity) of the findings. Remind reviewers (and editors) that null and negative results can also provide valuable and even novel contributions to the literature.

List the negatives and the positives

When it comes time to write peer review comments, some scholars may intentionally or not lean heavily towards giving criticism rather than praise. Of course, peer reviews need to be rigorous, and that requires a critical eye, but it’s important for reviewers to let authors know what they’re doing right also. Otherwise, the author may lose sight of the working parts of their submission and could end up actually making it worse in revisions.

Journals should remind reviewers that their goal is to help authors identify what they are doing correctly as well as where to improve . Reviews shouldn’t be so negative that the author ends up pulling apart their entire manuscript. Additionally, it’s worth reminding reviewers to keep snarky comments to themselves. As Dr. Might noted in his blog, the presence of sarcasm in peer review may nullify any useful feedback provided in the eyes of the author.

Give concrete examples and advice (within scope!)

No author likes hearing that an area of their paper “needs work” without getting context as to why. It’s essential to remind reviewers to back up their comments and opinions with concrete examples and suggestions for improvement and ensure that any recommendations they’re making are within the scope of the journal requirements and research subject matter in question.

Remind reviewers that if they make suggestions for authors to provide additional references, data points, or experiments, they should be within scope and something the reviewer can confirm they would be able (and willing) to do themselves if in the author’s position.

One of the best ways to help train reviewers on how to give constructive feedback is to provide them with real-world examples. These “ Peer Review Examples “ from F1000 are a great starting point.

Another way editors can help reviewers give more concrete commentary is by advising them to log their reactions and responses to a paper as they read it. This can help reviewers avoid making blanket criticisms about an entire work that are, in fact, only applicable to some sections. It may also encourage reviewers to recognize and point out more positives!

Providing reviewers with detailed feedback forms and manuscript assessment checklists is another surefire way to help them stay on track.

Don’t be afraid to seek support

Journals should also remind prospective reviewers that it’s OK to ask for support when working on peer reviews. For example, an early-career researcher might want to seek a mentor to co-author their first review with them or provide general guidance on how to determine whether an experiment was conducted in the best manner possible (keeping manuscript information confidential, of course).

To help new referees get their footing, journals can assist them in identifying mentorship opportunities where applicable and offer peer reviewer training or links to external resources. For example, Taylor & Francis has an “ Excellence in Peer Review “ course, and Sense About Science has a “ Peer Review Nuts and Bolts “ guide.

For journals dealing with specialized subject matter, it’s also critical to be prepared to bring in expert opinions when needed. Editors should let reviewers know not to hesitate to suggest bringing in an expert if they feel it’s necessary.

Follow the Golden Rule

Finally, perhaps the best piece of advice journals can give reviewers is to follow the Golden Rule. You know it, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

In his “How to peer review” guide, Dr. Matthew Might provided a clear barometer for referees to determine if they’ve prepared a thorough and fair review. “Once you’ve completed your review, ask yourself if you would be satisfied with the quality had you received the same for your own work,” he said. “If the answer is no, revise.”

Related Posts

3 Reasons Your Peer Review Process is Harder Than It Needs to Be

From disorganized journal data to scattered communication, there are a lot of traps journals can fall into that complicate peer review. Here are 3 ways your journal may be making peer review harder than it needs to be.

New Editor Training Course: Guide to Managing Peer Reviewers

Scholastica announces the release of a free training course for journal editors on best practices for managing peer reviewers.

Webinar on Demand: OA Advocates Weigh in on Democratization of Academic Journals

Did you miss the live stream of Scholastica's webinar, OA Advocates Weigh in on the Democratization of Academic Journals? You can watch it on-demand!

New Research Integrity Toolkit from Scholastica and Research Square for Peer Review Week 2022

Scholastica and Research Square announce a joint Peer Review Week blog series on tools to promote research integrity for scholarly journal editors, publishers, and authors. The series will cover ways to advance more transparent, rigorous, and ethical peer review practices. Learn more!

A New Phase of Diamond OA Journal Development: Interview with TSR

One of the most exciting aspects of supporting Open Access journals for the Scholastica team is learning about their publication development journeys. In this interview, Jenn Pickering, managing editor of The Sedimentary Record, discusses how they reached the milestones of their 100th article published and a successful editorial board transfer following a journal expansion initiative.

The Rise of DIY Open Access Journals: University of Cambridge OA Week Presentation

As part of OA Week 2017, Scholastica had the opportunity to be a part of the University of Cambridge Open Access Week speaking series event Helping Researchers Publish in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. Here's a recap of Scholastica CoFounder and CEO Brian Cody's presentation on the rise of DIY OA journal publishing.

Engaging in Peer Review

There are times when we write in solitary and intend to keep our words private. However, in many cases, we use writing as a way of communicating. We send messages, present and explain ideas, share information, and make arguments. One way to improve the effectiveness of this written communication is through peer-review.

What is Peer-Review?

In the most general of terms, peer-review is the act of having another writer read what you have written and respond in terms of its effectiveness. This reader attempts to identify the writing's strengths and weaknesses, and then suggests strategies for revising it. The hope is that not only will the specific piece of writing be improved, but that future writing attempts will also be more successful. Peer-review happens with all types of writing, at any stage of the process, and with all levels of writers.

Sometimes peer-review is called a writing workshop.

What is a Writing Workshop?

Peer-review sessions are sometimes called writing workshops. For example, students in a writing class might bring a draft of some writing that they are working on to share with either a single classmate or a group, bringing as many copies of the draft as they will need. There is usually a worksheet to fill out or a set questions for each peer-review reader to answer about the piece of writing. The writer might also request that their readers pay special attention to places where he or she would like specific help. An entire class can get together after reading and responding to discuss the writing as a group, or a single writer and reader can privately discuss the response, or the response can be written and shared in that way only.

Whether peer-review happens in a classroom setting or not, there are some common guidelines to follow.

Common Guidelines for Peer-Review

While peer-review is used in multiple contexts, there are some common guidelines to follow in any peer-review situation.

If You are the Writer

If you are the writer, think of peer-review as a way to test how well your writing is working. Keep an open mind and be prepared for criticism. Even the best writers have room for improvement. Even so, it is still up to you whether or not to take the peer-review reader's advice. If more than one person reads for you, you might receive conflicting responses, but don't panic. Consider each response and decide for yourself if you should make changes and what those changes will be. Not all the advice you get will be good, but learning to make revision choices based on the response is part of becoming a better writer.

If You are the Reader

As a peer-review reader, you will have an opportunity to practice your critical reading skills while at the same time helping the writer improve their writing skills. Specifically, you will want to do as follows:

Read the draft through once

Start by reading the draft through once, beginning to end, to get a general sense of the essay as a whole. Don't write on the draft yet. Use a piece of scratch paper to make notes if needed.

Write a summary

After an initial reading, it is sometimes helpful to write a short summary. A well written essay should be easy to summarize, so if writing a summary is difficult, try to determine why and share that with the writer. Also, if your understanding of the writer's main idea(s) turns out to be different from what the writer intended, that will be a place they can focus their revision efforts.

Focus on large issues

Focus your review on the larger writing issues. For example, the misplacement of a few commas is less important than the reader's ability to understand the main point of the essay. And yet, if you do notice a recurring problem with grammar or spelling, especially to the extent that it interferes with your ability to follow the essay, make sure to mention it.

Be constructive

Be constructive with your criticisms. A comment such as "This paragraph was boring" isn't helpful. Remember, this writer is your peer, so treat him/her with the respect and care that they deserve. Explain your responses. "I liked this part" or "This section doesn't work" isn't enough. Keep in mind that you are trying to help the writer revise, so give him/her enough information to be able to understand your responses. Point to specific places that show what you mean. As much as possible, don't criticize something without also giving the writer some suggestion for a possible solution. Be specific and helpful.

Be positive

Don't focus only on the things that aren't working, but also point out the things that are.

With these common guidelines in mind, here are some specific questions that are useful when doing peer-review.

Questions to Use

When doing peer-review, there are different ways to focus a response. You can use questions that are about the qualities of an essay or the different parts of an essay.

Questions to Ask about the Qualities of an Essay

When doing a peer-review response to a piece of writing, one way to focus it is by answering a set of questions about the qualities of an essay. Such qualities would be:

Organization

• Is there a clearly stated purpose/objective?
• Are there effective transitions?
• Are the introduction and conclusion focused on the main point of the essay?
• As a reader, can you easily follow the writer's flow of ideas?
• Is each paragraph focused on a single idea?
• At any point in the essay, do you feel lost or confused?
• Do any of the ideas/paragraphs seem out of order, too early or too late to be as effective as they could?

Development and Support

• Is each main point/idea made by the writer clearly developed and explained?
• Is the support/evidence for each point/idea persuasive and appropriate?
• Is the connection between the support/evidence, main point/idea, and the overall point of the essay made clear?
• Is all evidence adequately cited?
• Are the topic and tone of the essay appropriate for the audience?
• Are the sentences and word choices varied?

Grammar and Mechanics

• Does the writer use proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling?
• Are there any issues with any of these elements that make the writing unreadable or confusing?

Revision Strategy Suggestions

• What are two or three main revision suggestions that you have for the writer?

Questions to Ask about the Parts of an Essay

When doing a peer-review response to a piece of writing, one way to focus it is by answering a set of questions about the parts of an essay. Such parts would be:

Introduction

• Is there an introduction?
• Is it effective?
• Is it concise?
• Is it interesting?
• Does the introduction give the reader a sense of the essay's objective and entice the reader to read on?
• Does it meet the objective stated in the introduction?
• Does it stay focused on this objective or are there places it strays?
• Is it organized logically?
• Is each idea thoroughly explained and supported with good evidence?
• Are there transitions and are they effective?
• Is there a conclusion?
• Does it work?

Peer-Review Online

Peer-review doesn't happen only in classrooms or in face-to-face situations. A writer can share a text with peer-review readers in the context of a Web classroom. In this context, the writer's text and the reader's response are shared electronically using file-sharing, e-mail attachments, or discussion forums/message boards.

When responding to a document in these ways, the specific method changes because the reader can't write directly on the document like they would if it were a paper copy. It is even more important in this context to make comments and suggestions clear by thoroughly explaining and citing specific examples from the text.

When working with an electronic version of a text, such as an e-mail attachment, the reader can open the document or copy/paste the text in Microsoft Word, or other word-processing software. In this way, the reader can add his or her comments, save and then send the revised document back to the writer, either through e-mail, file sharing, or posting in a discussion forum.

The reader's overall comments can be added either before or after the writer's section of text. If all the comments will be included at the end of the original text, it is still a good idea to make a note in the beginning directing the writer's attention to the end of the document. Specific comments can be inserted into appropriate places in the document, made clear by using all capital letters enclosed with parenthesis. Some word-processing software also has a highlighting feature that might be helpful.

Benefits of Peer Review

Peer-review has a reflexive benefit. Both the writer and the peer-review reader have something to gain. The writer profits from the feedback they get. In the act of reviewing, the peer-review reader further develops his/her own revision skills. Critically reading the work of another writer enables a reader to become more able to identify, diagnose, and solve some of their own writing issues.

Peer Review Worksheets

Here are a few worksheets that you can print out and use for a peer-review session.

Parts of an Essay

• My audience is:
• My purpose is:
• The main point I want to make in this text is:
• One or two things that I would appreciate your comments on are:
• After reading through the draft one time, write a summary of the text. Do you agree with the writer's assessment of the text's main idea?
• In the following sections, answer the questions that would be most helpful to the writer or that seem to address the most relevant revision concerns. Refer to specific places in their text, citing examples of what you mean. Use a separate piece of paper for your responses and comments. Also, write comments directly on the writer's draft where needed.
• Is it effective? Concise? Interesting?
• Is there a conclusion? Does it work?

Finally, what are two or three revision suggestions you have for the writer?

Qualities of an Essay

• After reading through the draft one time, write a summary of the text.
• In the following sections, answer the questions that would be most helpful to the writer or that seem to address the most relevant revision concerns. Use a separate piece of paper for your responses and comments. Also, write comments directly on the writer's draft where needed.
• Is the connection between the support/evidence, main point/idea, and the overall point of the essay made clear?Is all evidence adequately cited?

Salahub, Jill . (2007). Peer Review. Writing@CSU . Colorado State University. https://writing.colostate.edu/guides/guide.cfm?guideid=43

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.25(3); 2014 Oct

Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide

Jacalyn kelly.

1 Clinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Tara Sadeghieh

Khosrow adeli.

2 Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

3 Chair, Communications and Publications Division (CPD), International Federation for Sick Clinical Chemistry (IFCC), Milan, Italy

The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding publication of this article.

Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to control the dissemination of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review. Despite its wide-spread use by most journals, the peer review process has also been widely criticised due to the slowness of the process to publish new findings and due to perceived bias by the editors and/or reviewers. Within the scientific community, peer review has become an essential component of the academic writing process. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer meaningful research questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of low quality manuscripts has become increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts as a filter to prevent this work from reaching the scientific community. The major advantage of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics argue that the peer review process stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts as a poor screen against plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, there has not yet been a foolproof system developed to take the place of peer review, however, researchers have been looking into electronic means of improving the peer review process. Unfortunately, the recent explosion in online only/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a large number of scientific articles with little or no peer review. This poses significant risk to advances in scientific knowledge and its future potential. The current article summarizes the peer review process, highlights the pros and cons associated with different types of peer review, and describes new methods for improving peer review.

WHAT IS PEER REVIEW AND WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE?

Peer Review is defined as “a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field” ( 1 ). Peer review is intended to serve two primary purposes. Firstly, it acts as a filter to ensure that only high quality research is published, especially in reputable journals, by determining the validity, significance and originality of the study. Secondly, peer review is intended to improve the quality of manuscripts that are deemed suitable for publication. Peer reviewers provide suggestions to authors on how to improve the quality of their manuscripts, and also identify any errors that need correcting before publication.

HISTORY OF PEER REVIEW

The concept of peer review was developed long before the scholarly journal. In fact, the peer review process is thought to have been used as a method of evaluating written work since ancient Greece ( 2 ). The peer review process was first described by a physician named Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi of Syria, who lived from 854-931 CE, in his book Ethics of the Physician ( 2 ). There, he stated that physicians must take notes describing the state of their patients’ medical conditions upon each visit. Following treatment, the notes were scrutinized by a local medical council to determine whether the physician had met the required standards of medical care. If the medical council deemed that the appropriate standards were not met, the physician in question could receive a lawsuit from the maltreated patient ( 2 ).

The invention of the printing press in 1453 allowed written documents to be distributed to the general public ( 3 ). At this time, it became more important to regulate the quality of the written material that became publicly available, and editing by peers increased in prevalence. In 1620, Francis Bacon wrote the work Novum Organum, where he described what eventually became known as the first universal method for generating and assessing new science ( 3 ). His work was instrumental in shaping the Scientific Method ( 3 ). In 1665, the French Journal des sçavans and the English Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society were the first scientific journals to systematically publish research results ( 4 ). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society is thought to be the first journal to formalize the peer review process in 1665 ( 5 ), however, it is important to note that peer review was initially introduced to help editors decide which manuscripts to publish in their journals, and at that time it did not serve to ensure the validity of the research ( 6 ). It did not take long for the peer review process to evolve, and shortly thereafter papers were distributed to reviewers with the intent of authenticating the integrity of the research study before publication. The Royal Society of Edinburgh adhered to the following peer review process, published in their Medical Essays and Observations in 1731: “Memoirs sent by correspondence are distributed according to the subject matter to those members who are most versed in these matters. The report of their identity is not known to the author.” ( 7 ). The Royal Society of London adopted this review procedure in 1752 and developed the “Committee on Papers” to review manuscripts before they were published in Philosophical Transactions ( 6 ).

Peer review in the systematized and institutionalized form has developed immensely since the Second World War, at least partly due to the large increase in scientific research during this period ( 7 ). It is now used not only to ensure that a scientific manuscript is experimentally and ethically sound, but also to determine which papers sufficiently meet the journal’s standards of quality and originality before publication. Peer review is now standard practice by most credible scientific journals, and is an essential part of determining the credibility and quality of work submitted.

IMPACT OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Peer review has become the foundation of the scholarly publication system because it effectively subjects an author’s work to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. Thus, it encourages authors to strive to produce high quality research that will advance the field. Peer review also supports and maintains integrity and authenticity in the advancement of science. A scientific hypothesis or statement is generally not accepted by the academic community unless it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal ( 8 ). The Institute for Scientific Information ( ISI ) only considers journals that are peer-reviewed as candidates to receive Impact Factors. Peer review is a well-established process which has been a formal part of scientific communication for over 300 years.

OVERVIEW OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS

The peer review process begins when a scientist completes a research study and writes a manuscript that describes the purpose, experimental design, results, and conclusions of the study. The scientist then submits this paper to a suitable journal that specializes in a relevant research field, a step referred to as pre-submission. The editors of the journal will review the paper to ensure that the subject matter is in line with that of the journal, and that it fits with the editorial platform. Very few papers pass this initial evaluation. If the journal editors feel the paper sufficiently meets these requirements and is written by a credible source, they will send the paper to accomplished researchers in the field for a formal peer review. Peer reviewers are also known as referees (this process is summarized in Figure 1 ). The role of the editor is to select the most appropriate manuscripts for the journal, and to implement and monitor the peer review process. Editors must ensure that peer reviews are conducted fairly, and in an effective and timely manner. They must also ensure that there are no conflicts of interest involved in the peer review process.

Overview of the review process

When a reviewer is provided with a paper, he or she reads it carefully and scrutinizes it to evaluate the validity of the science, the quality of the experimental design, and the appropriateness of the methods used. The reviewer also assesses the significance of the research, and judges whether the work will contribute to advancement in the field by evaluating the importance of the findings, and determining the originality of the research. Additionally, reviewers identify any scientific errors and references that are missing or incorrect. Peer reviewers give recommendations to the editor regarding whether the paper should be accepted, rejected, or improved before publication in the journal. The editor will mediate author-referee discussion in order to clarify the priority of certain referee requests, suggest areas that can be strengthened, and overrule reviewer recommendations that are beyond the study’s scope ( 9 ). If the paper is accepted, as per suggestion by the peer reviewer, the paper goes into the production stage, where it is tweaked and formatted by the editors, and finally published in the scientific journal. An overview of the review process is presented in Figure 1 .

WHO CONDUCTS REVIEWS?

Peer reviews are conducted by scientific experts with specialized knowledge on the content of the manuscript, as well as by scientists with a more general knowledge base. Peer reviewers can be anyone who has competence and expertise in the subject areas that the journal covers. Reviewers can range from young and up-and-coming researchers to old masters in the field. Often, the young reviewers are the most responsive and deliver the best quality reviews, though this is not always the case. On average, a reviewer will conduct approximately eight reviews per year, according to a study on peer review by the Publishing Research Consortium (PRC) ( 7 ). Journals will often have a pool of reviewers with diverse backgrounds to allow for many different perspectives. They will also keep a rather large reviewer bank, so that reviewers do not get burnt out, overwhelmed or time constrained from reviewing multiple articles simultaneously.

WHY DO REVIEWERS REVIEW?

Referees are typically not paid to conduct peer reviews and the process takes considerable effort, so the question is raised as to what incentive referees have to review at all. Some feel an academic duty to perform reviews, and are of the mentality that if their peers are expected to review their papers, then they should review the work of their peers as well. Reviewers may also have personal contacts with editors, and may want to assist as much as possible. Others review to keep up-to-date with the latest developments in their field, and reading new scientific papers is an effective way to do so. Some scientists use peer review as an opportunity to advance their own research as it stimulates new ideas and allows them to read about new experimental techniques. Other reviewers are keen on building associations with prestigious journals and editors and becoming part of their community, as sometimes reviewers who show dedication to the journal are later hired as editors. Some scientists see peer review as a chance to become aware of the latest research before their peers, and thus be first to develop new insights from the material. Finally, in terms of career development, peer reviewing can be desirable as it is often noted on one’s resume or CV. Many institutions consider a researcher’s involvement in peer review when assessing their performance for promotions ( 11 ). Peer reviewing can also be an effective way for a scientist to show their superiors that they are committed to their scientific field ( 5 ).

ARE REVIEWERS KEEN TO REVIEW?

A 2009 international survey of 4000 peer reviewers conducted by the charity Sense About Science at the British Science Festival at the University of Surrey, found that 90% of reviewers were keen to peer review ( 12 ). One third of respondents to the survey said they were happy to review up to five papers per year, and an additional one third of respondents were happy to review up to ten.

HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO REVIEW ONE PAPER?

On average, it takes approximately six hours to review one paper ( 12 ), however, this number may vary greatly depending on the content of the paper and the nature of the peer reviewer. One in every 100 participants in the “Sense About Science” survey claims to have taken more than 100 hours to review their last paper ( 12 ).

HOW TO DETERMINE IF A JOURNAL IS PEER REVIEWED

Ulrichsweb is a directory that provides information on over 300,000 periodicals, including information regarding which journals are peer reviewed ( 13 ). After logging into the system using an institutional login (eg. from the University of Toronto), search terms, journal titles or ISSN numbers can be entered into the search bar. The database provides the title, publisher, and country of origin of the journal, and indicates whether the journal is still actively publishing. The black book symbol (labelled ‘refereed’) reveals that the journal is peer reviewed.

THE EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PEER REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS

As previously mentioned, when a reviewer receives a scientific manuscript, he/she will first determine if the subject matter is well suited for the content of the journal. The reviewer will then consider whether the research question is important and original, a process which may be aided by a literature scan of review articles.

Scientific papers submitted for peer review usually follow a specific structure that begins with the title, followed by the abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, conclusions, and references. The title must be descriptive and include the concept and organism investigated, and potentially the variable manipulated and the systems used in the study. The peer reviewer evaluates if the title is descriptive enough, and ensures that it is clear and concise. A study by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) published by the Oxford University Press in 2006 indicated that the title of a manuscript plays a significant role in determining reader interest, as 72% of respondents said they could usually judge whether an article will be of interest to them based on the title and the author, while 13% of respondents claimed to always be able to do so ( 14 ).

The abstract is a summary of the paper, which briefly mentions the background or purpose, methods, key results, and major conclusions of the study. The peer reviewer assesses whether the abstract is sufficiently informative and if the content of the abstract is consistent with the rest of the paper. The NAR study indicated that 40% of respondents could determine whether an article would be of interest to them based on the abstract alone 60-80% of the time, while 32% could judge an article based on the abstract 80-100% of the time ( 14 ). This demonstrates that the abstract alone is often used to assess the value of an article.

The introduction of a scientific paper presents the research question in the context of what is already known about the topic, in order to identify why the question being studied is of interest to the scientific community, and what gap in knowledge the study aims to fill ( 15 ). The introduction identifies the study’s purpose and scope, briefly describes the general methods of investigation, and outlines the hypothesis and predictions ( 15 ). The peer reviewer determines whether the introduction provides sufficient background information on the research topic, and ensures that the research question and hypothesis are clearly identifiable.

The methods section describes the experimental procedures, and explains why each experiment was conducted. The methods section also includes the equipment and reagents used in the investigation. The methods section should be detailed enough that it can be used it to repeat the experiment ( 15 ). Methods are written in the past tense and in the active voice. The peer reviewer assesses whether the appropriate methods were used to answer the research question, and if they were written with sufficient detail. If information is missing from the methods section, it is the peer reviewer’s job to identify what details need to be added.

The results section is where the outcomes of the experiment and trends in the data are explained without judgement, bias or interpretation ( 15 ). This section can include statistical tests performed on the data, as well as figures and tables in addition to the text. The peer reviewer ensures that the results are described with sufficient detail, and determines their credibility. Reviewers also confirm that the text is consistent with the information presented in tables and figures, and that all figures and tables included are important and relevant ( 15 ). The peer reviewer will also make sure that table and figure captions are appropriate both contextually and in length, and that tables and figures present the data accurately.

The discussion section is where the data is analyzed. Here, the results are interpreted and related to past studies ( 15 ). The discussion describes the meaning and significance of the results in terms of the research question and hypothesis, and states whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected. This section may also provide possible explanations for unusual results and suggestions for future research ( 15 ). The discussion should end with a conclusions section that summarizes the major findings of the investigation. The peer reviewer determines whether the discussion is clear and focused, and whether the conclusions are an appropriate interpretation of the results. Reviewers also ensure that the discussion addresses the limitations of the study, any anomalies in the results, the relationship of the study to previous research, and the theoretical implications and practical applications of the study.

The references are found at the end of the paper, and list all of the information sources cited in the text to describe the background, methods, and/or interpret results. Depending on the citation method used, the references are listed in alphabetical order according to author last name, or numbered according to the order in which they appear in the paper. The peer reviewer ensures that references are used appropriately, cited accurately, formatted correctly, and that none are missing.

Finally, the peer reviewer determines whether the paper is clearly written and if the content seems logical. After thoroughly reading through the entire manuscript, they determine whether it meets the journal’s standards for publication,

and whether it falls within the top 25% of papers in its field ( 16 ) to determine priority for publication. An overview of what a peer reviewer looks for when evaluating a manuscript, in order of importance, is presented in Figure 2 .

How a peer review evaluates a manuscript

To increase the chance of success in the peer review process, the author must ensure that the paper fully complies with the journal guidelines before submission. The author must also be open to criticism and suggested revisions, and learn from mistakes made in previous submissions.

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PEER REVIEW

The peer review process is generally conducted in one of three ways: open review, single-blind review, or double-blind review. In an open review, both the author of the paper and the peer reviewer know one another’s identity. Alternatively, in single-blind review, the reviewer’s identity is kept private, but the author’s identity is revealed to the reviewer. In double-blind review, the identities of both the reviewer and author are kept anonymous. Open peer review is advantageous in that it prevents the reviewer from leaving malicious comments, being careless, or procrastinating completion of the review ( 2 ). It encourages reviewers to be open and honest without being disrespectful. Open reviewing also discourages plagiarism amongst authors ( 2 ). On the other hand, open peer review can also prevent reviewers from being honest for fear of developing bad rapport with the author. The reviewer may withhold or tone down their criticisms in order to be polite ( 2 ). This is especially true when younger reviewers are given a more esteemed author’s work, in which case the reviewer may be hesitant to provide criticism for fear that it will damper their relationship with a superior ( 2 ). According to the Sense About Science survey, editors find that completely open reviewing decreases the number of people willing to participate, and leads to reviews of little value ( 12 ). In the aforementioned study by the PRC, only 23% of authors surveyed had experience with open peer review ( 7 ).

Single-blind peer review is by far the most common. In the PRC study, 85% of authors surveyed had experience with single-blind peer review ( 7 ). This method is advantageous as the reviewer is more likely to provide honest feedback when their identity is concealed ( 2 ). This allows the reviewer to make independent decisions without the influence of the author ( 2 ). The main disadvantage of reviewer anonymity, however, is that reviewers who receive manuscripts on subjects similar to their own research may be tempted to delay completing the review in order to publish their own data first ( 2 ).

Double-blind peer review is advantageous as it prevents the reviewer from being biased against the author based on their country of origin or previous work ( 2 ). This allows the paper to be judged based on the quality of the content, rather than the reputation of the author. The Sense About Science survey indicates that 76% of researchers think double-blind peer review is a good idea ( 12 ), and the PRC survey indicates that 45% of authors have had experience with double-blind peer review ( 7 ). The disadvantage of double-blind peer review is that, especially in niche areas of research, it can sometimes be easy for the reviewer to determine the identity of the author based on writing style, subject matter or self-citation, and thus, impart bias ( 2 ).

Masking the author’s identity from peer reviewers, as is the case in double-blind review, is generally thought to minimize bias and maintain review quality. A study by Justice et al. in 1998 investigated whether masking author identity affected the quality of the review ( 17 ). One hundred and eighteen manuscripts were randomized; 26 were peer reviewed as normal, and 92 were moved into the ‘intervention’ arm, where editor quality assessments were completed for 77 manuscripts and author quality assessments were completed for 40 manuscripts ( 17 ). There was no perceived difference in quality between the masked and unmasked reviews. Additionally, the masking itself was often unsuccessful, especially with well-known authors ( 17 ). However, a previous study conducted by McNutt et al. had different results ( 18 ). In this case, blinding was successful 73% of the time, and they found that when author identity was masked, the quality of review was slightly higher ( 18 ). Although Justice et al. argued that this difference was too small to be consequential, their study targeted only biomedical journals, and the results cannot be generalized to journals of a different subject matter ( 17 ). Additionally, there were problems masking the identities of well-known authors, introducing a flaw in the methods. Regardless, Justice et al. concluded that masking author identity from reviewers may not improve review quality ( 17 ).

In addition to open, single-blind and double-blind peer review, there are two experimental forms of peer review. In some cases, following publication, papers may be subjected to post-publication peer review. As many papers are now published online, the scientific community has the opportunity to comment on these papers, engage in online discussions and post a formal review. For example, online publishers PLOS and BioMed Central have enabled scientists to post comments on published papers if they are registered users of the site ( 10 ). Philica is another journal launched with this experimental form of peer review. Only 8% of authors surveyed in the PRC study had experience with post-publication review ( 7 ). Another experimental form of peer review called Dynamic Peer Review has also emerged. Dynamic peer review is conducted on websites such as Naboj, which allow scientists to conduct peer reviews on articles in the preprint media ( 19 ). The peer review is conducted on repositories and is a continuous process, which allows the public to see both the article and the reviews as the article is being developed ( 19 ). Dynamic peer review helps prevent plagiarism as the scientific community will already be familiar with the work before the peer reviewed version appears in print ( 19 ). Dynamic review also reduces the time lag between manuscript submission and publishing. An example of a preprint server is the ‘arXiv’ developed by Paul Ginsparg in 1991, which is used primarily by physicists ( 19 ). These alternative forms of peer review are still un-established and experimental. Traditional peer review is time-tested and still highly utilized. All methods of peer review have their advantages and deficiencies, and all are prone to error.

PEER REVIEW OF OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS

Open access (OA) journals are becoming increasingly popular as they allow the potential for widespread distribution of publications in a timely manner ( 20 ). Nevertheless, there can be issues regarding the peer review process of open access journals. In a study published in Science in 2013, John Bohannon submitted 304 slightly different versions of a fictional scientific paper (written by a fake author, working out of a non-existent institution) to a selected group of OA journals. This study was performed in order to determine whether papers submitted to OA journals are properly reviewed before publication in comparison to subscription-based journals. The journals in this study were selected from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and Biall’s List, a list of journals which are potentially predatory, and all required a fee for publishing ( 21 ). Of the 304 journals, 157 accepted a fake paper, suggesting that acceptance was based on financial interest rather than the quality of article itself, while 98 journals promptly rejected the fakes ( 21 ). Although this study highlights useful information on the problems associated with lower quality publishers that do not have an effective peer review system in place, the article also generalizes the study results to all OA journals, which can be detrimental to the general perception of OA journals. There were two limitations of the study that made it impossible to accurately determine the relationship between peer review and OA journals: 1) there was no control group (subscription-based journals), and 2) the fake papers were sent to a non-randomized selection of journals, resulting in bias.

JOURNAL ACCEPTANCE RATES

Based on a recent survey, the average acceptance rate for papers submitted to scientific journals is about 50% ( 7 ). Twenty percent of the submitted manuscripts that are not accepted are rejected prior to review, and 30% are rejected following review ( 7 ). Of the 50% accepted, 41% are accepted with the condition of revision, while only 9% are accepted without the request for revision ( 7 ).

SATISFACTION WITH THE PEER REVIEW SYSTEM

Based on a recent survey by the PRC, 64% of academics are satisfied with the current system of peer review, and only 12% claimed to be ‘dissatisfied’ ( 7 ). The large majority, 85%, agreed with the statement that ‘scientific communication is greatly helped by peer review’ ( 7 ). There was a similarly high level of support (83%) for the idea that peer review ‘provides control in scientific communication’ ( 7 ).

HOW TO PEER REVIEW EFFECTIVELY

The following are ten tips on how to be an effective peer reviewer as indicated by Brian Lucey, an expert on the subject ( 22 ):

1) Be professional

Peer review is a mutual responsibility among fellow scientists, and scientists are expected, as part of the academic community, to take part in peer review. If one is to expect others to review their work, they should commit to reviewing the work of others as well, and put effort into it.

2) Be pleasant

If the paper is of low quality, suggest that it be rejected, but do not leave ad hominem comments. There is no benefit to being ruthless.

3) Read the invite

When emailing a scientist to ask them to conduct a peer review, the majority of journals will provide a link to either accept or reject. Do not respond to the email, respond to the link.

4) Be helpful

Suggest how the authors can overcome the shortcomings in their paper. A review should guide the author on what is good and what needs work from the reviewer’s perspective.

5) Be scientific

The peer reviewer plays the role of a scientific peer, not an editor for proofreading or decision-making. Don’t fill a review with comments on editorial and typographic issues. Instead, focus on adding value with scientific knowledge and commenting on the credibility of the research conducted and conclusions drawn. If the paper has a lot of typographical errors, suggest that it be professionally proof edited as part of the review.

6) Be timely

Stick to the timeline given when conducting a peer review. Editors track who is reviewing what and when and will know if someone is late on completing a review. It is important to be timely both out of respect for the journal and the author, as well as to not develop a reputation of being late for review deadlines.

7) Be realistic

The peer reviewer must be realistic about the work presented, the changes they suggest and their role. Peer reviewers may set the bar too high for the paper they are editing by proposing changes that are too ambitious and editors must override them.

8) Be empathetic

Ensure that the review is scientific, helpful and courteous. Be sensitive and respectful with word choice and tone in a review.

Remember that both specialists and generalists can provide valuable insight when peer reviewing. Editors will try to get both specialised and general reviewers for any particular paper to allow for different perspectives. If someone is asked to review, the editor has determined they have a valid and useful role to play, even if the paper is not in their area of expertise.

10) Be organised

A review requires structure and logical flow. A reviewer should proofread their review before submitting it for structural, grammatical and spelling errors as well as for clarity. Most publishers provide short guides on structuring a peer review on their website. Begin with an overview of the proposed improvements; then provide feedback on the paper structure, the quality of data sources and methods of investigation used, the logical flow of argument, and the validity of conclusions drawn. Then provide feedback on style, voice and lexical concerns, with suggestions on how to improve.

In addition, the American Physiology Society (APS) recommends in its Peer Review 101 Handout that peer reviewers should put themselves in both the editor’s and author’s shoes to ensure that they provide what both the editor and the author need and expect ( 11 ). To please the editor, the reviewer should ensure that the peer review is completed on time, and that it provides clear explanations to back up recommendations. To be helpful to the author, the reviewer must ensure that their feedback is constructive. It is suggested that the reviewer take time to think about the paper; they should read it once, wait at least a day, and then re-read it before writing the review ( 11 ). The APS also suggests that Graduate students and researchers pay attention to how peer reviewers edit their work, as well as to what edits they find helpful, in order to learn how to peer review effectively ( 11 ). Additionally, it is suggested that Graduate students practice reviewing by editing their peers’ papers and asking a faculty member for feedback on their efforts. It is recommended that young scientists offer to peer review as often as possible in order to become skilled at the process ( 11 ). The majority of students, fellows and trainees do not get formal training in peer review, but rather learn by observing their mentors. According to the APS, one acquires experience through networking and referrals, and should therefore try to strengthen relationships with journal editors by offering to review manuscripts ( 11 ). The APS also suggests that experienced reviewers provide constructive feedback to students and junior colleagues on their peer review efforts, and encourages them to peer review to demonstrate the importance of this process in improving science ( 11 ).

The peer reviewer should only comment on areas of the manuscript that they are knowledgeable about ( 23 ). If there is any section of the manuscript they feel they are not qualified to review, they should mention this in their comments and not provide further feedback on that section. The peer reviewer is not permitted to share any part of the manuscript with a colleague (even if they may be more knowledgeable in the subject matter) without first obtaining permission from the editor ( 23 ). If a peer reviewer comes across something they are unsure of in the paper, they can consult the literature to try and gain insight. It is important for scientists to remember that if a paper can be improved by the expertise of one of their colleagues, the journal must be informed of the colleague’s help, and approval must be obtained for their colleague to read the protected document. Additionally, the colleague must be identified in the confidential comments to the editor, in order to ensure that he/she is appropriately credited for any contributions ( 23 ). It is the job of the reviewer to make sure that the colleague assisting is aware of the confidentiality of the peer review process ( 23 ). Once the review is complete, the manuscript must be destroyed and cannot be saved electronically by the reviewers ( 23 ).

COMMON ERRORS IN SCIENTIFIC PAPERS

When performing a peer review, there are some common scientific errors to look out for. Most of these errors are violations of logic and common sense: these may include contradicting statements, unwarranted conclusions, suggestion of causation when there is only support for correlation, inappropriate extrapolation, circular reasoning, or pursuit of a trivial question ( 24 ). It is also common for authors to suggest that two variables are different because the effects of one variable are statistically significant while the effects of the other variable are not, rather than directly comparing the two variables ( 24 ). Authors sometimes oversee a confounding variable and do not control for it, or forget to include important details on how their experiments were controlled or the physical state of the organisms studied ( 24 ). Another common fault is the author’s failure to define terms or use words with precision, as these practices can mislead readers ( 24 ). Jargon and/or misused terms can be a serious problem in papers. Inaccurate statements about specific citations are also a common occurrence ( 24 ). Additionally, many studies produce knowledge that can be applied to areas of science outside the scope of the original study, therefore it is better for reviewers to look at the novelty of the idea, conclusions, data, and methodology, rather than scrutinize whether or not the paper answered the specific question at hand ( 24 ). Although it is important to recognize these points, when performing a review it is generally better practice for the peer reviewer to not focus on a checklist of things that could be wrong, but rather carefully identify the problems specific to each paper and continuously ask themselves if anything is missing ( 24 ). An extremely detailed description of how to conduct peer review effectively is presented in the paper How I Review an Original Scientific Article written by Frederic G. Hoppin, Jr. It can be accessed through the American Physiological Society website under the Peer Review Resources section.

CRITICISM OF PEER REVIEW

A major criticism of peer review is that there is little evidence that the process actually works, that it is actually an effective screen for good quality scientific work, and that it actually improves the quality of scientific literature. As a 2002 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded, ‘Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its effects are uncertain’ ( 25 ). Critics also argue that peer review is not effective at detecting errors. Highlighting this point, an experiment by Godlee et al. published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) inserted eight deliberate errors into a paper that was nearly ready for publication, and then sent the paper to 420 potential reviewers ( 7 ). Of the 420 reviewers that received the paper, 221 (53%) responded, the average number of errors spotted by reviewers was two, no reviewer spotted more than five errors, and 35 reviewers (16%) did not spot any.

Another criticism of peer review is that the process is not conducted thoroughly by scientific conferences with the goal of obtaining large numbers of submitted papers. Such conferences often accept any paper sent in, regardless of its credibility or the prevalence of errors, because the more papers they accept, the more money they can make from author registration fees ( 26 ). This misconduct was exposed in 2014 by three MIT graduate students by the names of Jeremy Stribling, Dan Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, who developed a simple computer program called SCIgen that generates nonsense papers and presents them as scientific papers ( 26 ). Subsequently, a nonsense SCIgen paper submitted to a conference was promptly accepted. Nature recently reported that French researcher Cyril Labbé discovered that sixteen SCIgen nonsense papers had been used by the German academic publisher Springer ( 26 ). Over 100 nonsense papers generated by SCIgen were published by the US Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) ( 26 ). Both organisations have been working to remove the papers. Labbé developed a program to detect SCIgen papers and has made it freely available to ensure publishers and conference organizers do not accept nonsense work in the future. It is available at this link: http://scigendetect.on.imag.fr/main.php ( 26 ).

Additionally, peer review is often criticized for being unable to accurately detect plagiarism. However, many believe that detecting plagiarism cannot practically be included as a component of peer review. As explained by Alice Tuff, development manager at Sense About Science, ‘The vast majority of authors and reviewers think peer review should detect plagiarism (81%) but only a minority (38%) think it is capable. The academic time involved in detecting plagiarism through peer review would cause the system to grind to a halt’ ( 27 ). Publishing house Elsevier began developing electronic plagiarism tools with the help of journal editors in 2009 to help improve this issue ( 27 ).

It has also been argued that peer review has lowered research quality by limiting creativity amongst researchers. Proponents of this view claim that peer review has repressed scientists from pursuing innovative research ideas and bold research questions that have the potential to make major advances and paradigm shifts in the field, as they believe that this work will likely be rejected by their peers upon review ( 28 ). Indeed, in some cases peer review may result in rejection of innovative research, as some studies may not seem particularly strong initially, yet may be capable of yielding very interesting and useful developments when examined under different circumstances, or in the light of new information ( 28 ). Scientists that do not believe in peer review argue that the process stifles the development of ingenious ideas, and thus the release of fresh knowledge and new developments into the scientific community.

Another issue that peer review is criticized for, is that there are a limited number of people that are competent to conduct peer review compared to the vast number of papers that need reviewing. An enormous number of papers published (1.3 million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006), but the number of competent peer reviewers available could not have reviewed them all ( 29 ). Thus, people who lack the required expertise to analyze the quality of a research paper are conducting reviews, and weak papers are being accepted as a result. It is now possible to publish any paper in an obscure journal that claims to be peer-reviewed, though the paper or journal itself could be substandard ( 29 ). On a similar note, the US National Library of Medicine indexes 39 journals that specialize in alternative medicine, and though they all identify themselves as “peer-reviewed”, they rarely publish any high quality research ( 29 ). This highlights the fact that peer review of more controversial or specialized work is typically performed by people who are interested and hold similar views or opinions as the author, which can cause bias in their review. For instance, a paper on homeopathy is likely to be reviewed by fellow practicing homeopaths, and thus is likely to be accepted as credible, though other scientists may find the paper to be nonsense ( 29 ). In some cases, papers are initially published, but their credibility is challenged at a later date and they are subsequently retracted. Retraction Watch is a website dedicated to revealing papers that have been retracted after publishing, potentially due to improper peer review ( 30 ).

Additionally, despite its many positive outcomes, peer review is also criticized for being a delay to the dissemination of new knowledge into the scientific community, and as an unpaid-activity that takes scientists’ time away from activities that they would otherwise prioritize, such as research and teaching, for which they are paid ( 31 ). As described by Eva Amsen, Outreach Director for F1000Research, peer review was originally developed as a means of helping editors choose which papers to publish when journals had to limit the number of papers they could print in one issue ( 32 ). However, nowadays most journals are available online, either exclusively or in addition to print, and many journals have very limited printing runs ( 32 ). Since there are no longer page limits to journals, any good work can and should be published. Consequently, being selective for the purpose of saving space in a journal is no longer a valid excuse that peer reviewers can use to reject a paper ( 32 ). However, some reviewers have used this excuse when they have personal ulterior motives, such as getting their own research published first.

RECENT INITIATIVES TOWARDS IMPROVING PEER REVIEW

F1000Research was launched in January 2013 by Faculty of 1000 as an open access journal that immediately publishes papers (after an initial check to ensure that the paper is in fact produced by a scientist and has not been plagiarised), and then conducts transparent post-publication peer review ( 32 ). F1000Research aims to prevent delays in new science reaching the academic community that are caused by prolonged publication times ( 32 ). It also aims to make peer reviewing more fair by eliminating any anonymity, which prevents reviewers from delaying the completion of a review so they can publish their own similar work first ( 32 ). F1000Research offers completely open peer review, where everything is published, including the name of the reviewers, their review reports, and the editorial decision letters ( 32 ).

PeerJ was founded by Jason Hoyt and Peter Binfield in June 2012 as an open access, peer reviewed scholarly journal for the Biological and Medical Sciences ( 33 ). PeerJ selects articles to publish based only on scientific and methodological soundness, not on subjective determinants of ‘impact ’, ‘novelty’ or ‘interest’ ( 34 ). It works on a “lifetime publishing plan” model which charges scientists for publishing plans that give them lifetime rights to publish with PeerJ, rather than charging them per publication ( 34 ). PeerJ also encourages open peer review, and authors are given the option to post the full peer review history of their submission with their published article ( 34 ). PeerJ also offers a pre-print review service called PeerJ Pre-prints, in which paper drafts are reviewed before being sent to PeerJ to publish ( 34 ).

Rubriq is an independent peer review service designed by Shashi Mudunuri and Keith Collier to improve the peer review system ( 35 ). Rubriq is intended to decrease redundancy in the peer review process so that the time lost in redundant reviewing can be put back into research ( 35 ). According to Keith Collier, over 15 million hours are lost each year to redundant peer review, as papers get rejected from one journal and are subsequently submitted to a less prestigious journal where they are reviewed again ( 35 ). Authors often have to submit their manuscript to multiple journals, and are often rejected multiple times before they find the right match. This process could take months or even years ( 35 ). Rubriq makes peer review portable in order to help authors choose the journal that is best suited for their manuscript from the beginning, thus reducing the time before their paper is published ( 35 ). Rubriq operates under an author-pay model, in which the author pays a fee and their manuscript undergoes double-blind peer review by three expert academic reviewers using a standardized scorecard ( 35 ). The majority of the author’s fee goes towards a reviewer honorarium ( 35 ). The papers are also screened for plagiarism using iThenticate ( 35 ). Once the manuscript has been reviewed by the three experts, the most appropriate journal for submission is determined based on the topic and quality of the paper ( 35 ). The paper is returned to the author in 1-2 weeks with the Rubriq Report ( 35 ). The author can then submit their paper to the suggested journal with the Rubriq Report attached. The Rubriq Report will give the journal editors a much stronger incentive to consider the paper as it shows that three experts have recommended the paper to them ( 35 ). Rubriq also has its benefits for reviewers; the Rubriq scorecard gives structure to the peer review process, and thus makes it consistent and efficient, which decreases time and stress for the reviewer. Reviewers also receive feedback on their reviews and most significantly, they are compensated for their time ( 35 ). Journals also benefit, as they receive pre-screened papers, reducing the number of papers sent to their own reviewers, which often end up rejected ( 35 ). This can reduce reviewer fatigue, and allow only higher-quality articles to be sent to their peer reviewers ( 35 ).

According to Eva Amsen, peer review and scientific publishing are moving in a new direction, in which all papers will be posted online, and a post-publication peer review will take place that is independent of specific journal criteria and solely focused on improving paper quality ( 32 ). Journals will then choose papers that they find relevant based on the peer reviews and publish those papers as a collection ( 32 ). In this process, peer review and individual journals are uncoupled ( 32 ). In Keith Collier’s opinion, post-publication peer review is likely to become more prevalent as a complement to pre-publication peer review, but not as a replacement ( 35 ). Post-publication peer review will not serve to identify errors and fraud but will provide an additional measurement of impact ( 35 ). Collier also believes that as journals and publishers consolidate into larger systems, there will be stronger potential for “cascading” and shared peer review ( 35 ).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Peer review has become fundamental in assisting editors in selecting credible, high quality, novel and interesting research papers to publish in scientific journals and to ensure the correction of any errors or issues present in submitted papers. Though the peer review process still has some flaws and deficiencies, a more suitable screening method for scientific papers has not yet been proposed or developed. Researchers have begun and must continue to look for means of addressing the current issues with peer review to ensure that it is a full-proof system that ensures only quality research papers are released into the scientific community.

• Peer Review Checklist

Each essay is made up of multiple parts. In order to have a strong essay each part must be logical and effective. In many cases essays will be written with a strong thesis, but the rest of the paper will be lacking; making the paper ineffective. An essay is only as strong as its weakest point.

Using a checklist to complete your review will allow you to rate each of the parts in the paper according to their strength. There are many different peer review checklists, but the one below should be helpful for your assignment.

• Is the thesis clear?
• Does the author use his or her own ideas in the thesis and argument?
• Is the significance of the problem in the paper explained? Is the significance compelling?
• Are the ideas developed logically and thoroughly?
• Does the author use ethos effectively?
• Does the author use pathos effectively?
• Are different viewpoints acknowledged?
• Are objections effectively handled?
• Does the author give adequate explanations about sources used?
• Are the sources well-integrated into the paper, or do they seem to be added in just for the sake of adding sources?
• Is the word choice specific, concrete and interesting?
• Are the sentences clear?
• Is the overall organization of the argument effective?
• Are the transitions between paragraphs smooth?
• Are there any grammatical errors?

Based on the rubric found at: Grading Rubric Template (Word)

• Authored by : J. Indigo Eriksen. Provided by : Blue Ridge Community College. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Image of checklist. Authored by : Jurgen Appelo. Located at : https://flic.kr/p/hykfe7 . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Peer Review Checklist. Authored by : Robin Parent. Provided by : Utah State University English Department. Project : USU Open CourseWare Initiative. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Table of Contents

Instructor Resources (Access Requires Login)

• Overview of Instructor Resources

An Overview of the Writing Process

• Introduction to the Writing Process
• Introduction to Writing
• Your Role as a Learner
• What is an Essay?
• Reading to Write
• Defining the Writing Process
• Videos: Prewriting Techniques
• Thesis Statements
• Organizing an Essay
• Creating Paragraphs
• Conclusions
• Editing and Proofreading
• Matters of Grammar, Mechanics, and Style
• Comparative Chart of Writing Strategies

Using Sources

• Quoting, Paraphrasing, and Avoiding Plagiarism
• Formatting the Works Cited Page (MLA)
• Citing Paraphrases and Summaries (APA)
• APA Citation Style, 6th edition: General Style Guidelines

Definition Essay

• Definitional Argument Essay
• How to Write a Definition Essay
• Critical Thinking
• Video: Thesis Explained
• Effective Thesis Statements
• Student Sample: Definition Essay

Narrative Essay

• Introduction to Narrative Essay
• Student Sample: Narrative Essay
• "Shooting an Elephant" by George Orwell
• "Sixty-nine Cents" by Gary Shteyngart
• Video: The Danger of a Single Story
• How to Write an Annotation
• How to Write a Summary
• Writing for Success: Narration

Illustration/Example Essay

• Introduction to Illustration/Example Essay
• "She's Your Basic L.O.L. in N.A.D" by Perri Klass
• "April & Paris" by David Sedaris
• Writing for Success: Illustration/Example
• Student Sample: Illustration/Example Essay

Compare/Contrast Essay

• Introduction to Compare/Contrast Essay
• "Disability" by Nancy Mairs
• "Friending, Ancient or Otherwise" by Alex Wright
• "A South African Storm" by Allison Howard
• Writing for Success: Compare/Contrast
• Student Sample: Compare/Contrast Essay

Cause-and-Effect Essay

• Introduction to Cause-and-Effect Essay
• "Cultural Baggage" by Barbara Ehrenreich
• "Women in Science" by K.C. Cole
• Writing for Success: Cause and Effect
• Student Sample: Cause-and-Effect Essay

Argument Essay

• Introduction to Argument Essay
• Rogerian Argument
• "The Case Against Torture," by Alisa Soloman
• "The Case for Torture" by Michael Levin
• How to Write a Summary by Paraphrasing Source Material
• Writing for Success: Argument
• Student Sample: Argument Essay
• Grammar/Mechanics Mini-lessons
• Mini-lesson: Subjects and Verbs, Irregular Verbs, Subject Verb Agreement
• Mini-lesson: Sentence Types
• Mini-lesson: Fragments I
• Mini-lesson: Run-ons and Comma Splices I
• Mini-lesson: Comma Usage
• Mini-lesson: Parallelism
• Mini-lesson: The Apostrophe
• Mini-lesson: Capital Letters
• Grammar Practice - Interactive Quizzes
• De Copia - Demonstration of the Variety of Language
• Style Exercise: Voice

• Writing Center
• Current Students
• Online Only Students
• Faculty & Staff
• Parents & Family
• Alumni & Friends
• Community & Business
• Student Life
• Video Introduction
• Become a Writing Assistant
• All Writers
• Graduate Students
• ELL Students
• Campus and Community
• Testimonials
• Encouraging Writing Center Use
• Incentives and Requirements
• Open Educational Resources
• How We Help
• Get to Know Us
• Conversation Partners Program
• Workshop Series
• Professors Talk Writing
• Computer Lab
• Starting a Writing Center
• A Note to Instructors
• Annotated Bibliography
• Literature Review
• Research Proposal
• Argument Essay
• Rhetorical Analysis

Argument Essay Peer Review

As a writer . . .  

Step 1 : Underline your thesis statement.  

Step 2: Include answers to the following two questions at the top of your draft:  

• What questions do you have for your reviewer? 
• List two concerns you have about your argument essay.  

   Step 3: When you receive your peer's feedback, read and consider it carefully.  

Remember: you are not bound to accept everything your reader suggests; if you believe that the response comes as a result of misunderstanding your intentions, be sure that those intentions are clear. The problem can be either with the reader or the writer!  

As a reviewer . . .  

As you begin writing your peer review, remember that your peer will benefit more from constructive criticism than vague praise. A comment like "I got confused here" or "I saw your point clearly here" is more useful than "It looks okay to me." Point out ways your classmates can improve their work.  

Step 1: Read your peer’s draft two times.  

Read the draft once to get an overview of the paper, and a second time to provide constructive criticism for the author to use when revising the draft.  

Step 2: Answer the following questions:  

• What is the writer’s thesis statement? (Copy it here.)  
• Is the thesis clear and well-supported?  
• Is the paper overly general, or does the writer make specific claims and then back them up using logical reasoning and/or researched evidence?  
• Does the writing “flow” smoothly? Note sentences or sections where flow could  be improved.  
• Is the essay reasonably free of sentence and spelling errors?  
• Remember the MEAL plan – does each paragraph follow this basic structure?  [M – Main idea;  E – Evidence; A – Analysis; L – Link]  
• Are all references to outside materials (direct quotations as well as very specific information that had to have come from reading others’ work) cited, both within the essay and on a Works Cited page?  
• Has the writer used at least three scholarly sources (no Wikipedia, personal blogs, etc.)?   

Step 3: Address your peer’s questions and concerns included at the top of the draft.    

Step 4: Write a short paragraph about what the writer does especially well.    

Step 5: Write a short paragraph about what you think the writer should do to improve the draft.    

Your suggestions will be the most useful part of peer review for your classmates, so focus more of your time on these paragraphs; they will count for more of your peer review grade than the yes or no responses.

Hints for peer review:  

• Point out the strengths in the essay.  
• Address the larger issues first.  
• Make specific suggestions for improvement.  
• Be tactful but be candid and direct.  
• Don’t be afraid to disagree with another reviewer.  
• Make and receive comments in a useful way.  
• Remember peer review is not an editing service; you should not focus on sentence-level errors like punctuation and spelling.    

Contact Info

Kennesaw Campus 1000 Chastain Road Kennesaw, GA 30144

Marietta Campus 1100 South Marietta Pkwy Marietta, GA 30060

Campus Maps

Phone 470-KSU-INFO (470-578-4636)

kennesaw.edu/info

Media Resources

Resources For

Related Links

• Financial Aid
• Degrees, Majors & Programs
• Job Opportunities
• Campus Security
• Global Education
• Sustainability
• Accessibility

470-KSU-INFO (470-578-4636)

© 2024 Kennesaw State University. All Rights Reserved.

• Privacy Statement
• Accreditation
• Emergency Information
• Reporting Hotline
• Open Records
• Human Trafficking Notice

The Scholarly Kitchen

What’s Hot and Cooking In Scholarly Publishing

Revisiting: How to Be A Good Peer Reviewer

• Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility
• Peer Review
• Social Role

Editor’s Note: Last month’s post making the argument against paying peer reviewers sparked a lot of commentary, both on the post itself and throughout the various academic outlets on the internet. With t he theme of Peer Review Week 2021 just announced, peer review has been front and center on our minds. Which seemed like a good time to revisit Jasmine Wallace’s excellent primer on reviewer best practices for the peer review process.

In my experience, the streamlined process of peer review is complicated when reviewers with good intentions do bad things. A reviewer who does bad things displays behaviors that slow down or lessen the effectiveness of peer review. A good peer reviewer displays efficient behaviors and adds value to the process. The good thing about a reviewer who does bad things is that they can change. There are quite a few ways to shift bad behaviors and habits of reviewers to become not just good, but great peer reviewers.

Mind the Time

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Seriously, good reviewers do not keep a fellow peer waiting longer than needed to receive their review. Keep in mind that your review is holding their work from progressing. Some people have been working for years to get their research “peer review” ready. Their blood, sweat, and tears have gone into the work you’ve been asked to evaluate.

When you get the initial invitation to review, make note of the deadline . Pull out your calendar and check to see if you can realistically return a fair and sound assessment of the work in the allotted time. If the deadline is not reasonable, don’t be afraid to ask for an extension.

In fact, the perfect time to ask for an extension is immediately after you receive that initial invitation. All journals have an internal turnaround time deadline which is designed to incorporate delays. So ask for an additional week if needed. Or, better yet, if you know when you’re able to return the review, put that information in your reply to the invitation. Remember: a good reviewer requests an extension (if needed!) prior to the deadline.

Here’s another great habit to help you develop into a good reviewer: read the notifications . We understand that these notifications might be annoying, but they are there to help keep you on track. We know you’re often swamped, and don’t intend to be late, but if you don’t reply to our status inquiries then we are not aware of your current needs. If after reading the abstract, you’re just not interested in reviewing the paper, then hit the decline button. Respond and don’t delay, every day passed is another day the author is kept waiting.

Be Intentional

Good reviewers really take their time to provide a valuable evaluation of the work, even if the content is not ready to be published. There is a strong focus on novelty in peer review, which is completely understandable in a world where there is an overabundance of contributors. However, make sure your feedback is helping to make the work better. If you’ve accepted the review, then honor the researcher and the research by adding value to what is given to you.

It is not your job to copyedit, but to evaluate the research for aspects such as originality, appropriateness, and relevance. Do not worry about the formatting , and read beyond language barriers. If you notice that these issues are preventing the science from being understood, then let the author know and request that the paper is allowed to be resubmitted when those problems are addressed.

Keep in mind that good content for all researchers is what we need more of for the greater community. The more research that is published, the more content contributors are reading and disseminating. This helps to diversify the areas and reach of the scholarly community-at-large.

Read the Guidelines and Scope

Not reading the reviewer guidelines definitely constitutes a habit of a reviewer who does bad things. If you’ve never read the reviewer guidelines , be it your 1 st or 41 st review, please do so today. These instructions were made to guide you on how to provide the best, most useful review possible.  It took a team of people weeks, if not months, of carefully considering the best ways to help you succeed. Take the time to review those resources. This can be particularly important in the age of megajournals, which review for accuracy but not novelty. Try not be the reviewer who gets very angry when their rejection suggestions are dismissed by the editor because they are based on novelty for a journal like PLOS ONE . Know the policies of the journal you’re reviewing for and avoid that frustration.

You may find that certain organizations do not have reviewer guidelines. Or, it may be that the instructions are nearly impossible to find on their website, but you should always ask for guidelines if they are not made readily available. Perhaps this is your opportunity to add value for the author(s) in a way you didn’t consider.  You need clear instructions so you know what is expected for your review, especially if you’re a first-timer.

And be aware of the mission of the organization for which you’re reviewing. You want to ensure that the research you’re asked to review is aligned with their organizational values. And you will provide more intentional feedback when you know and buy into the mission of the organization. You should also be clear about the scope of the journal. This often gets updated every few years to include emerging research areas, so read it at least once a year.

Educate and Grow Your Community

The primary purpose of the peer review process is to fairly provide feedback, or information on, your particular field. Keep that at the heart of your review. This is all about peer mentoring.

The ultimate goal is to strengthen your community of researchers . Ask yourself, “How does my review make my community stronger?” This is especially true in smaller, more niche fields of study. Reviewers in these types of communities should work even harder to strengthen their small group. Sometimes the smallest communities are the strongest, and larger communities can learn from them how to continue to grow and thrive.

It may be difficult to see how some work helps to strengthen the community, and all you can think to do is reject the work . And that’s okay because, as @EloquentScience says, at times, “the best review is one that gives me strong evidence to support a tough decision on a manuscript.”   Rejections also help to change the field if done well , because constructive feedback has been proven to be an effective way to improve research. Remember that the journal is soliciting your review precisely for your expert feedback. One major goal of your feedback in peer review is to help your fellow peers improve, which helps to promote a culture of growth and learning.

Be sure that your review is detailed and specific. You agreed to review this paper, so take time to make sure that your review is helping to educate. Do not write a few simple statements filled with your opinions, rather make sure your feedback is robust and informative. If you know additional research will make the work better, tell them where to start to look for that research. Make sure that your feedback is corrective so that you are adding value to your larger community one review at a time.

Say No ( and recommend others)

Stop agreeing to reviews that you really cannot or do not want to handle. Feel free to say ‘No’ to the initial invitation. Keep in mind that, if your review is truly needed, then you will know upfront; otherwise, your occasional ‘No’ is okay and not frowned upon. You should not turn down almost every invitation you receive, but if you truly know you don’t have the time to do the review, then don’t.

When you are asked to review, the inviter may not be aware that you are working on the final stages of your own research. Or that you recently agreed to spearhead a new clinical trial. Or simply that you just accepted two other invitations right before you received their invitation. Do not overburden yourself , remember that the goal of your review is to provide useful feedback and you are less likely to do that if you’re tired or overworked.

And if you can’t do the review yourself, recommend another colleague who might be able to.  When thinking about ways to be more inclusive, recommendations are an excellent way to help support newer reviewers.  Think about your ‘No’ as an opportunity to include these new reviewers in the often closed reviewer pool.  Recommendations are usually the way new reviewers are discovered. The validation you provide might just be what helps to reshape the system of reviewer selection.

Saying ‘no’ is also great opportunity to help train your students and postdocs as peer reviewers. If you can’t do the review yourself but have a student or postdoc you think could do the manuscript justice, then by all means suggest them to the editor. In my experience, students and postdocs are capable of doing excellent and thorough reviews, and as a mentor, you can oversee the process and help them learn to be contributing members of the community. Just be sure to run this through the journal editor — send along the contact information of the person you’re recommending and let the editor take it from there, rather than accepting and having someone else in your research group do the actual review.

Sometimes you want to handle the review but can’t do it when you’re asked. Feel free to say no , but also let us know when you can do it. We are willing to work with willing reviewers. When you want to handle a review, we know that means you really want to add useful and valuable feedback. Again, these types of problems were considered beforehand and we understand, just let us know.

Be Bold and Constructive

One concern I’ve heard from reviewers is not wanting to provide constructive feedback when the authors of the work are their superiors. Be bold and constructive with your feedback . Peer review is about peer-to-peer assessment, which means that in the game of peer review, every player should be seen as a peer — someone who’s on an equal playing field with you. An author’s credentials should not be the reason you don’t suggest that work needs to be made better. Do not back down on your opinions if they are going to make the work better, experts need corrective feedback just as much as early career researchers. In fact, they likely know better than anyone how a good rejection makes your research stronger.

Please don’t give any feedback you would not want to receive . Do not make dogmatic, dismissive, or blatantly rude statements about the research. Not only is this type of feedback unprofessional, but it’s also useless in the attempt to make the research better and stronger. Again, even if the paper should be rejected try to give corrective feedback that adds value.

The peer-review process has been widely criticized for perceived bias by editors and/or reviewers. Therefore, be bold and opt-in if you’re ever presented with the opportunity to participate in open peer review, or other new peer-review workflow models. Open review is designed to increase transparency in peer review and give power back to the community by opening up an otherwise closed process. With this particular model a reviewer can choose to identify themselves by signing their reviews. In addition to making sure reviewers are given credit for their work, open peer review can help reduce and diminish those negative critiques about the peer review process. In some ways it’s bringing back the heart of peer to peer review.

Peer review is thought of by many as an academic duty. Others see it as a way to keep up-to-date with the latest developments in their field, or, to be active members of their community. Duty or not, good reviewers make sure to get credit for their work! Reviewing is a volunteer job, which requires a considerable amount of time and effort to perform. And, while you may not typically get paid to do it, there are a few other ways that you can be acknowledged for your contribution.

One quick and easy way to ensure you get credit for your research contributions is to sign up for a Publons account . Publons is a free platform powered by Web of Science. It was built to help reviewers keep track of their reviews, verify that they are the ones that performed the review and measure the impact of their work. If you don’t have an account, go sign up for one today.

After you get credit for your review in Publons take it one step further and connect your Publons account to your Open Researcher and Contributor ID record, or ORCID for short. Or give your publisher permission to do so directly if they offer to do so. ORCID provides a persistent digital identifier for researchers and, similar to Publons it helps researchers to get credit for all their work and professional activities. This is useful to tool to ensure you are recognized for your research, and again if you don’t have one sign up for an ORCID iD .

Many publishers already partner with Publons and ORCID.  They understand that peer review activities are often used when assessing a researchers’ performance for promotions, and they want to help ensure their reviewers are receiving proper recognition. Therefore, if you don’t see that Publons or ORCID is offered by a publisher or you can’t add the work to your account on your own, be sure to ask them how to obtain credit for your work . They should be able to provide a record of all your contributions to their journals.

Aside from the content, the peer(s), whether “good” or “bad”, are practically the most important component to the peer review process, so this is a role that should not be undertaken lightly. Do your due diligence to get the review back in a timely manner. Take time to really assess the work and, when you don’t have the time yourself, recommend a colleague. Consider the review process as a way to help advance your field, and provide feedback that is both deliberate and constructive. And don’t forget to make sure you are recognized for all your contributions.

Jasmine Wallace

Jasmine Wallace is the Senior Production Manager at the Public Library of Science (PLOS). She is responsible for the production processes and day to day production and publication operations for the PLOS journal portfolio. Previously, she was the Peer Review Manager at the American Society for Microbiology (ASM). She was responsible for ensuring peer review practices, workflow, processes, and policies were up-to-date and applied consistently across the entire portfolio of journals. She currently serves as Treasurer for the Council of Science Editors and is the creator and host of their podcast series S.P.E.A.K. In the past, she was a Teaching Assistant at George Washington University for a course on Editing for Books, Journals, and E-Products.

8 Thoughts on "Revisiting: How to Be A Good Peer Reviewer"

A good reviewer is one who demands her review to be published.

https://pandelisperakakis.info/2020/08/25/things-to-consider-before-accepting-your-next-peer-review-assignment/

• By Pandelis Perakakis
• Jul 6, 2021, 5:51 AM

Thanks for sharing!

• By Jasmine Wallace
• Jul 6, 2021, 2:54 PM

This is a good article providing a lot of common sense to potential reviewers. While many of the recommendations are generic, there are lots of subject-specific differences in the review process. For a great article on business and economics publishing check out “How to Write an Effective Referee Report and Improve the Scientific Review Process” by Jonathan B. Berk, Campbell R. Harvey and David Hirshleifer in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 31, no. 1, Winter 2017 ( https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.31.1.231 .}

• By Zac Rolnik
• Jul 6, 2021, 10:37 AM

Thanks for sharing this resource!

• Jul 6, 2021, 2:55 PM

As a working scientist who does a lot of peer-reviewing, I feel deeply insulted by this barrage of platitudes. As if we wouldn’t know how to do our job.

• Jul 6, 2021, 1:36 PM

One of the issues I sometimes run into in working with academic researchers is an inability to see things from any point of view other than their own. You may indeed be quite skilled at peer review. You may have received superb training in this activity throughout the course of your career. However, others may not be as brilliant and effective as you. Perhaps someone who oversees and manages the peer review process for thousands (tens of thousands?) of manuscripts annually may have insights to offer that are beyond your own limited view of the small number of times you are part of such processes. Perhaps the problematic behaviors described in this blog post actually happen sometimes (never from or to you, of course). Perhaps they see levels of understanding and experience from peer reviewers that may be different from your own superb practices, and may wish to help those individuals live up to the high standards that you present. I apologize if you find this insulting. It must be disappointing to find out that others have not yet reached your level of perfection and perhaps might need guidance to reach that point.

• By David Crotty
• Jul 6, 2021, 1:47 PM

• By Daniel P. Hallahan
• Jul 7, 2021, 10:29 AM

Boom! Mic drop.

Well said, David.

• Jul 11, 2021, 5:28 PM

Comments are closed.

Related Articles:

Next Article:

"Culture and morale changed overnight! In under 2 months, we’ve had over 2,000 kudos sent and 80%+ engagement across all employees."

President at M&H

Recognition and Rewards all inside Slack or Microsoft Teams

Free To Try. No Credit Card Required.

Celebrate wins together

Redeem coins for gift cards, company rewards & donations.

Get your team on a weekly feedback streak

Never miss a work anniversary or birthday

10x your response rate, instantly

Gather continuous, real-time insights

Discover insights from recognition

Have questions? Send us a message

How teams are building culture with employee recognition and rewards

Advice and answers from the Matter team

Helpful videos to fully experience Matter

Peer Review Examples (+14 Phrases to Use)

‍ Table of Contents:

Peer review feedback examples, what are the benefits of peer review feedback examples, what are peer review feedback examples, 5 key parts of good peer review examples, 14 examples of performance review phrases, how do you give peer review feedback to remote teams, the benefits of a feedback culture, how to implement a strong feedback culture.

A peer review is a type of evaluative feedback. It focuses on the strengths and areas of improvement for yourself, your team members, and even the organization as a whole. This form of evaluation can benefit all parties involved, helping to build self-awareness and grow in new ways that we might not have realized before. Of course, the best examples of peer review feedback are those that are well-received and effective in the workplace, which we will go over in the next section.

As mentioned, peer review feedback is a great way to identify your strengths and weaknesses and those of others. The benefits are two-fold: it helps you grow in new ways that may have been difficult for you before, while also making sure everyone involved feels confident about their abilities moving forward.

For instance, organizations with robust feedback cultures can close any gaps that hinder their performance and seize business opportunities whenever they present themselves. This dual benefit gives them competitive advantages that allow them to grow, along with a more positive workplace. Leading companies that enjoy these types of advantages include Cargill, Netflix, and Google. Peer review feedback can also be a great tool to use for conducting your annual performance reviews. They give managers visibility and insights that might not be possible otherwise. The feedback can help you better understand how your employees view their performance, as well as what they think the company's expectations are of them. This opportunity is especially helpful for those who work remotely—it allows managers to see things that might be missed otherwise.

For example, if an employee works from home often or telecommutes frequently, it can be more difficult for managers to get a sense of how they are doing. This is where peer review feedback comes in—if their peers notice issues that need attention, this provides the manager with valuable insights that might otherwise have gone unnoticed. Everyone must be on the same page about what exactly it is they want from these sessions and how their employees will benefit from receiving them.

A Gallup poll revealed that organizations that give their employees regular feedback have turnover rates that are almost 15% lower than for those employees that didn't receive any. This statistic indicates that regular reviews, including peer reviews, are important. However, so is giving the right kind of peer review feedback.

As such, when you have a peer review session, think about some good examples of the type of feedback that might be beneficial for both parties. These would be the relevant peer review examples you want to use for your organization.

One example would be to discuss ways in which the employee’s performance may have been exemplary when you give them their peer review feedback forms . This conversation gives the person being reviewed an idea about how well they're doing and where their strengths lie in the form of positive feedback. 

On the other hand, it also helps them know there is room for improvement where they may not have realized it before in the form of negative feedback.

Another example would be to discuss how you might improve how the person being reviewed conducts themselves on a day-to-day basis. Again, this action can help someone realize how their performance can be improved and provide them with suggestions that they might not have thought of before.

For example, you may notice that a team member tends to talk more than is necessary during meetings or wastes time by doing unnecessary tasks when other pressing matters are at hand. This type of negative feedback would allow the person receiving it to know what areas they need to work on and how they can improve themselves.

As mentioned previously, peer reviews are a great way of giving an employee concrete suggestions for the areas in which they need improvement, as well as those where their performance is exemplary.

To ensure that your team feels valued and confident moving forward, you should give them the best examples of peer review feedback possible. The following are five examples of what constitutes good peer review feedback:

1. Use anonymity. Keeping them anonymous so that the employee review makes workers feel comfortable with the content and don't feel any bias has entered the review process.

2. Scheduling them frequently enough. A good employee experience with peer reviews involves scheduling them often enough so that no one has an unwelcome surprise come annual or biannual performance appraisal time.

3. Keep them objective & constructive. Keep peer review feedback objective and constructive—your goal is to help improve the peers you're reviewing so they can continue to do an even better job than before!

4. Having key points to work on. Ask questions such as: what is the goal? And what does the company want people to get out of each session?

5. The right people giving the peer review . Personnel familiar with the employee's work should be the ones doing the employee evaluation, rating the reviewer's performance, and providing peer feedback.

You can use the following positive performance appraisal phrases to recognize and coach your employees for anything from regularly scheduled peer reviews to biannual and annual appraisals:

• "I can always count on you to..." ‍
• "You are a dependable employee who meets all deadlines." ‍
• "Your customer service is excellent. You make everyone feel welcome and comfortable, no matter how busy things get." ‍
• "The accounting work that you do for our team helps us out in the long run." ‍
• "I appreciate your helpfulness when it comes to training new employees. You always seem willing to take some time out of your day, even though you're busy with other tasks, to show them how we do things here at [COMPANY]." ‍
• "It's so nice to see you staying on top of your work. You never miss a deadline, and that is very important here at [COMPANY]." ‍
• "I can always count on you when I need something done immediately." ‍
• "Your communication skills are exceptional, and I appreciate the way you always get your point across clearly." ‍
• "You are always willing to lend an ear if someone needs help or has a question about something. You're great at being the go-to person when people need advice." ‍
• "I appreciate your ability to anticipate our customers' needs."

Negative performance review phrases can be helpful if handled the right way and often contribute to improving the employee's performance. 

Here are some examples of effective negative performance review phrases you can use:

• "You seem to struggle with following the company's processes. I would like to see you get better at staying on top of what needs to be done and getting it done on time." ‍
• "I'm concerned that your work quality has slipped lately. You're still meeting deadlines, but some of your work seems rushed or incomplete. I want to make sure that you're giving everything the attention it deserves." ‍
• "I noticed that you've been getting a lot of customer complaints lately. Is there anything going on? Maybe we can work together and come up with some solutions for how things could be better handled in the future?" ‍
• "You seem overwhelmed right now, and it's affecting your work quality. I want to help you figure out how we can better distribute the workload so that you're not feeling like this anymore."

When giving peer review feedback to remote teams, it is essential for everyone involved that the employee being reviewed feels comfortable and respected. And whether a peer or direct report gives the remote employee a review, the most effective way to ensure this happens is by providing open communication and constructive feedback throughout the process.

However, when you work remotely, it can be difficult to get the opportunity for peer feedback. However, there are ways of ensuring that such a process is still beneficial and productive.

The following are some examples of how to go about giving effective peer review feedback when working virtually:

• Take advantage of webcams or video conferencing to make sure that you can see the employee's facial expressions and monitor body language during a performance review, remote or otherwise. ‍
• Just like with any in-person performance review, it's critical to schedule a regular time for sessions so they don't catch anyone by surprise. ‍
• Make it clear at both your end as well as theirs what the overall goal is—this helps them prepare ahead of time and ensures there are no unforeseen surprises. ‍
• Ensure that you keep the feedback objective with constructive criticism, as this is what will allow them to improve their performance in a way that they can take advantage of immediately. Include all these key points in your company peer review templates also. ‍
• Be prepared for these sessions by having a list of key points you want to cover with your peer reviewer—this helps guide the conversation while ensuring no important points are overlooked.

When employees enjoy their work, understand their goals, and know the values and competencies of the job, job satisfaction increases, along with their performance. In addition, the link between productivity and effective feedback is well established. For instance, 69% of workers said they would work harder if their efforts were recognized, according to LinkedIn.

Continuous and regularly scheduled performance appraisal feedback helps with employee development, clarifies expectations, aligns goals, and motivates staff (check out our article Peer Review Feedback to find out why peer feedback is so essential), establishing a positive workplace. Lastly, a workplace that dedicates itself to motivating people to be better will improve employee engagement and the levels of performance.

If you haven't implemented a culture for using feedback yet, there are several effective ways to go about it. One good way to kick things off is to first identify teams or some other similar organizational unit and have them experiment with the social feedback system.

While the frequency of peer reviews should be given every three to four weeks, or even at the end of a project sprint , the cycles for building a strong feedback culture can be quarterly or monthly, depending on your preferences and operations.

After the three cycles are finalized, you typically have built up enough feedback information to start the organization on its path to a strong feedback culture.

Knowing these peer review feedback examples and tips on giving them to remote teams will help you become more comfortable with this type of evaluative discussion. It can be difficult at first, but remember that the benefits are worth it! And remember: when giving peer review feedback, make sure you keep each session objective. This helps ensure they're constructive and that both parties walk away feeling as though they've learned a lot from them.

Want to keep that morale sky-high during Feedback Friday and the peer review process? If so, be sure to check out Matter , with features that allow you to give public Kudos all inside Slack.

Start Employee Recognition, Rewards, & Surveys

Recognition & Rewards all in Slack or Teams

• Performance Management

Peer Review Examples: Powerful Phrases You Can Use

• October 30, 2023

The blog is tailored for HR professionals looking to set up and improve peer review feedback within their organization. Share the article with your employees as a guide to help them understand how to craft insightful peer review feedback.

Effective employee performance evaluation plays a pivotal role in both personal growth and the maintenance of a productive, harmonious work environment. When considering the comprehensive perspective of 360-degree evaluation, peer review feedback emerges as a crucial element. In this article, we’ll explore the importance of peer review feedback and equip you with powerful peer review examples to facilitate the process.

Peer review feedback is the practice of colleagues and co-workers assessing and providing meaningful feedback on each other’s performance. It is a valuable instrument that helps organizations foster professional development, teamwork, and continuous improvement.

Peoplebox lets you conduct effective peer reviews within minutes. You can customize feedback, use tailored surveys, and seamlessly integrate it with your collaboration tools. It’s a game-changer for boosting development and collaboration in your team.

Why are Peer Reviews Important?

Here are some compelling reasons why peer review feedback is so vital:

Broader Perspective: Peer feedback offers a well-rounded view of an employee’s performance. Colleagues witness their day-to-day efforts and interactions, providing a more comprehensive evaluation compared to just a supervisor’s perspective.

Skill Enhancement: It serves as a catalyst for skill enhancement. Constructive feedback from peers highlights areas of improvement and offers opportunities for skill development.

Encourages Accountability: Peer review fosters a culture of accountability . Knowing that one’s work is subject to review by peers can motivate individuals to perform at their best consistently.

Team Cohesion: It strengthens team cohesion by promoting open communication. and constructive communication. Teams that actively engage in peer feedback often develop a stronger sense of unity and shared purpose.

Fair and Unbiased Assessment: By involving colleagues, peer review helps ensure a fair and unbiased assessment. It mitigates the potential for supervisor bias and personal favoritism in performance evaluations.

Identifying Blind Spots: Peers can identify blind spots that supervisors may overlook. This means addressing issues at an early stage, preventing them from escalating.

Motivation and Recognition: Positive peer feedback can motivate employees and offer well-deserved recognition for their efforts. Acknowledgment from colleagues can be equally, if not more, rewarding than praise from higher-ups.

Now, let us look at the best practices for giving peer feedback in order to leverage its benefits effectively.

30 Positive Peer Feedback Examples

Now that we’ve established the importance of peer review feedback, the next step is understanding how to use powerful phrases to make the most of this evaluation process.  In this section, we’ll equip you with various examples of phrases to use during peer reviews, making the journey more confident and effective for you and your team .

Must Read: 60+ Self-Evaluation Examples That Can Make You Shine

Peer Review Example on Work Quality

When it comes to recognizing excellence, quality work is often the first on the list. Here are some peer review examples highlighting the work quality:

• “Kudos to Sarah for consistently delivering high-quality reports that never fail to impress both clients and colleagues. Her meticulous attention to detail and creative problem-solving truly set the bar high.”
• “John’s attention to detail and unwavering commitment to excellence make his work a gold standard for the entire team. His consistently high-quality contributions ensure our projects shine.”
• “Alexandra’s dedication to maintaining the project’s quality standards sets a commendable benchmark for the entire department. Her willingness to go the extra mile is a testament to her work ethic and quality focus.”
• “Patrick’s dedication to producing error-free code is a testament to his commitment to work quality. His precise coding and knack for bug spotting make his work truly outstanding.”

Peer Review Examples on Competency and Job-Related Skills

Competency and job-related skills set the stage for excellence. Here’s how you can write a peer review highlighting this particular skill set:

• “Michael’s extensive knowledge and problem-solving skills have been instrumental in overcoming some of our most challenging technical hurdles. His ability to analyze complex issues and find creative solutions is remarkable. Great job, Michael!”
• “Emily’s ability to quickly grasp complex concepts and apply them to her work is truly commendable. Her knack for simplifying the intricate is a gift that benefits our entire team.”
• “Daniel’s expertise in data analysis has significantly improved the efficiency of our decision-making processes. His ability to turn data into actionable insights is an invaluable asset to the team.”
• “Sophie’s proficiency in graphic design has consistently elevated the visual appeal of our projects. Her creative skills and artistic touch add a unique, compelling dimension to our work.”

Peer Review Sample on Leadership Skills

Leadership ability extends beyond a mere title; it’s a living embodiment of vision and guidance, as seen through these exceptional examples:

• “Under Lisa’s leadership, our team’s morale and productivity have soared, a testament to her exceptional leadership skills and hard work. Her ability to inspire, guide, and unite the team in the right direction is truly outstanding.”
• “James’s ability to inspire and lead by example makes him a role model for anyone aspiring to be a great leader. His approachability and strong sense of ethics create an ideal leadership model.”
• “Rebecca’s effective delegation and strategic vision have been the driving force behind our project’s success. Her ability to set clear objectives, give valuable feedback, and empower team members is truly commendable.”
• “Victoria’s leadership style fosters an environment of trust and innovation, enabling our team to flourish in a great way. Her encouragement of creativity and openness to diverse ideas is truly inspiring.”

Feedback on Teamwork and Collaboration Skills

Teamwork is where individual brilliance becomes collective success. Here are some peer review examples highlighting teamwork:

• “Mark’s ability to foster a collaborative environment is infectious; his team-building skills unite us all. His open-mindedness and willingness to listen to new ideas create a harmonious workspace.”
• “Charles’s commitment to teamwork has a ripple effect on the entire department, promoting cooperation and synergy. His ability to bring out the best in the rest of the team is truly remarkable.”
• “David’s talent for bringing diverse perspectives together enhances the creativity and effectiveness of our group projects. His ability to unite us under a common goal fosters a sense of belonging.”

Peer Review Examples on Professionalism and Work Ethics

Professionalism and ethical conduct define a thriving work culture. Here’s how you can write a peer review highlighting work ethics:

• “Rachel’s unwavering commitment to deadlines and ethical work practices is a model for us all. Her dedication to punctuality and ethics contributes to a culture of accountability.”
• “Timothy consistently exhibits the highest level of professionalism, ensuring our clients receive impeccable service. His courtesy and reliability set a standard of excellence.”
• “Daniel’s punctuality and commitment to deadlines set a standard of professionalism we should all aspire to. His sense of responsibility is an example to us all.”
• “Olivia’s unwavering dedication to ethical business practices makes her a trustworthy and reliable colleague. Her ethical principles create an atmosphere of trust and respect within our team, leading to a more positive work environment.”

Feedback on Mentoring and Support

Mentoring and support pave the way for future success. Check out these peer review examples focusing on mentoring:

• “Ben’s dedication to mentoring new team members is commendable; his guidance is invaluable to our junior colleagues. His approachability and patience create an environment where learning flourishes.”
• “David’s mentorship has been pivotal in nurturing the talents of several team members beyond his direct report, fostering a culture of continuous improvement. His ability to transfer knowledge is truly outstanding.”
• “Laura’s patient mentorship and continuous support for her colleagues have helped elevate our team’s performance. Her constructive feedback and guidance have made a remarkable difference.”
• “William’s dedication to knowledge sharing and mentoring is a driving force behind our team’s constant learning and growth. His commitment to others’ development is inspiring.”

Peer Review Examples on Communication Skills

Effective communication is the linchpin of harmonious collaboration. Here are some peer review examples to highlight your peer’s communication skills:

• “Grace’s exceptional communication skills ensure clarity and cohesion in our team’s objectives. Her ability to articulate complex ideas in a straightforward manner is invaluable.”
• “Oliver’s ability to convey complex ideas with simplicity greatly enhances our project’s success. His effective communication style fosters a productive exchange of ideas.”
• “Aiden’s proficiency in cross-team communication ensures that our projects move forward efficiently. His ability to bridge gaps in understanding is truly commendable.”

Peer Review Examples on Time Management and Productivity

Time management and productivity are the engines that drive accomplishments. Here are some peer review examples highlighting time management:

• “Ella’s time management is nothing short of exemplary; it sets a benchmark for us all. Her efficient task organization keeps our projects on track.”
• “Robert’s ability to meet deadlines and manage time efficiently significantly contributes to our team’s overall productivity. His time management skills are truly remarkable.”
• “Sophie’s time management skills are a cornerstone of her impressive productivity, inspiring us all to be more efficient. Her ability to juggle multiple tasks is impressive.”
• “Liam’s time management skills are key to his consistently high productivity levels. His ability to organize work efficiently is an example for all of us to follow.”

Though these positive feedback examples are valuable, it’s important to recognize that there will be instances when your team needs to convey constructive or negative feedback. In the upcoming section, we’ll present 40 examples of constructive peer review feedback. Keep reading!

40 Constructive Peer Review Feedback

Receiving peer review feedback, whether positive or negative, presents a valuable chance for personal and professional development. Let’s explore some examples your team can employ to provide constructive feedback , even in situations where criticism is necessary, with a focus on maintaining a supportive and growth-oriented atmosphere.

Constructive Peer Review Feedback on Work Quality

• “I appreciate John’s meticulous attention to detail, which enhances our projects. However, I noticed a few minor typos in his recent report. To maintain an impeccable standard, I’d suggest dedicating more effort to proofreading.”
• “Sarah’s research is comprehensive, and her insights are invaluable. Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity and brevity, I recommend distilling her conclusions to their most essential points.”
• “Michael’s coding skills are robust, but for the sake of team collaboration, I’d suggest that he provides more detailed comments within the code to enhance readability and consistency.”
• “Emma’s creative design concepts are inspiring, yet consistency in her chosen color schemes across projects could further bolster brand recognition.”
• “David’s analytical skills are thorough and robust, but it might be beneficial to present data in a more reader-friendly format to enhance overall comprehension.”
• “I’ve observed Megan’s solid technical skills, which are highly proficient. To further her growth, I recommend taking on more challenging projects to expand her expertise.”
• “Robert’s industry knowledge is extensive and impressive. To become a more well-rounded professional, I’d suggest he focuses on honing his client relationship and communication skills.”
• “Alice’s project management abilities are impressive, and she’s demonstrated an aptitude for handling complexity. I’d recommend she refines her risk assessment skills to excel further in mitigating potential issues.”
• “Daniel’s presentation skills are excellent, and his reports are consistently informative. Nevertheless, there is room for improvement in terms of interpreting data and distilling it into actionable insights.”
• “Laura’s sales techniques are effective, and she consistently meets her targets. I encourage her to invest time in honing her negotiation skills for even greater success in securing deals and partnerships.”

Peer Review Examples on Leadership Skills

• “I’ve noticed James’s commendable decision-making skills. However, to foster a more inclusive and collaborative environment, I’d suggest he be more open to input from team members during the decision-making process.”
• “Sophia’s delegation is efficient, and her team trusts her leadership. To further inspire the team, I’d suggest she share credit more generously and acknowledge the collective effort.”
• “Nathan’s vision and strategic thinking are clear and commendable. Enhancing his conflict resolution skills is suggested to promote a harmonious work environment and maintain team focus.”
• “Olivia’s accountability is much appreciated. I’d encourage her to strengthen her mentoring approach to develop the team’s potential even further and secure a strong professional legacy.”
• “Ethan’s adaptability is an asset that brings agility to the team. Cultivating a more motivational leadership style is recommended to uplift team morale and foster a dynamic work environment.”

Peer Review Examples on Teamwork and Collaboration

• “Ava’s collaboration is essential to the team’s success. She should consider engaging more actively in group discussions to contribute her valuable insights.”
• “Liam’s teamwork is exemplary, but he could motivate peers further by sharing credit more openly and recognizing their contributions.”
• “Chloe’s flexibility in teamwork is invaluable. To become an even more effective team player, she might invest in honing her active listening skills.”
• “William’s contributions to group projects are consistently valuable. To maximize his impact, I suggest participating in inter-departmental collaborations and fostering cross-functional teamwork.”
• “Zoe’s conflict resolution abilities create a harmonious work environment. Expanding her ability to mediate conflicts and find mutually beneficial solutions is advised to enhance team cohesion.”
• “Noah’s punctuality is an asset to the team. To maintain professionalism consistently, he should adhere to deadlines with unwavering dedication, setting a model example for peers.”
• “Grace’s integrity and ethical standards are admirable. To enhance professionalism further, I’d recommend that she maintain a higher level of discretion in discussing sensitive matters.”
• “Logan’s work ethics are strong, and his commitment is evident. Striving for better communication with colleagues regarding project updates is suggested, ensuring everyone remains well-informed.”
• “Sophie’s reliability is appreciated. Maintaining a high level of attention to confidentiality when handling sensitive information would enhance her professionalism.”
• “Jackson’s organizational skills are top-notch. Upholding professionalism by maintaining a tidy and organized workspace is recommended.”

Peer Review Feedback Examples on Mentoring and Support

• “Aiden provides invaluable mentoring to junior team members. He should consider investing even more time in offering guidance and support to help them navigate their professional journeys effectively.”
• “Harper’s commendable support to peers is noteworthy. She should develop coaching skills to maximize their growth, ensuring their development matches their potential.”
• “Samuel’s patience in teaching is a valuable asset. He should tailor support to individual learning styles to enhance their understanding and retention of key concepts.”
• “Ella’s mentorship plays a pivotal role in the growth of colleagues. She should expand her role in offering guidance for long-term career development, helping them set and achieve their professional goals.”
• “Benjamin’s exceptional helpfulness fosters a more supportive atmosphere where everyone can thrive. He should encourage team members to seek assistance when needed.”
• “Mia’s communication skills are clear and effective. To cater to different audience types, she should use more varied communication channels to convey her message more comprehensively.”
• “Lucas’s ability to articulate ideas is commendable, and his verbal communication is strong. He should polish non-verbal communication to ensure that his body language aligns with his spoken message.”
• “Evelyn’s appreciated active listening skills create strong relationships with colleagues. She should foster stronger negotiation skills for client interactions, ensuring both parties are satisfied with the outcomes.”
• “Jack’s presentation skills are excellent. He should elevate written communication to match the quality of verbal presentations, offering more comprehensive and well-structured documentation.”
• “Avery’s clarity in explaining complex concepts is valued by colleagues. She should develop persuasive communication skills to enhance her ability to secure project proposals and buy-in from stakeholders.”

Feedback on Time Management and Productivity

• “Isabella’s efficient time management skills contribute to the team’s success. She should explore time-tracking tools to further optimize her workflow and maximize her efficiency.”
• “Henry’s remarkable productivity sets a high standard. He should maintain a balanced approach to tasks to prevent burnout and ensure sustainable long-term performance.”
• “Luna’s impressive task prioritization and strategic time allocation should be fine-tuned with goal-setting techniques to ensure consistent productivity aligned with objectives.”
• “Leo’s great deadline adherence is commendable. He should incorporate short breaks into the schedule to enhance productivity and focus, allowing for the consistent meeting of high standards.”
• “Mila’s multitasking abilities are a valuable skill. She should strive to implement regular time-blocking sessions into the daily routine to further enhance time management capabilities.”

Do’s and Don’t of Peer Review Feedback

Peer review feedback can be extremely helpful for intellectual growth and professional development. Engaging in this process with thoughtfulness and precision can have a profound impact on both the reviewer and the individual seeking feedback.

However, there are certain do’s and don’ts that must be observed to ensure that the feedback is not only constructive but also conducive to a positive and productive learning environment.

The Do’s of Peer Review Feedback:

Empathize and Relate : Put yourself in the shoes of the person receiving the feedback. Recognize the effort and intention behind their work, and frame your comments with sensitivity.

Ground Feedback in Data : Base your feedback on concrete evidence and specific examples from the work being reviewed. This not only adds credibility to your comments but also helps the recipient understand precisely where improvements are needed.

Clear and Concise Writing : Express your thoughts in a clear and straightforward manner. Avoid jargon or ambiguous language that may lead to misinterpretation.

Offer Constructive Criticism : Focus on providing feedback that can guide improvement. Instead of simply pointing out flaws, suggest potential solutions or alternatives.

Highlight Strength s: Acknowledge and commend the strengths in the work. Recognizing what’s done well can motivate the individual to build on their existing skills.

The Don’ts of Peer Review Feedback:

Avoid Ambiguity : Vague or overly general comments such as “It’s not good” do not provide actionable guidance. Be specific in your observations.

Refrain from Personal Attacks : Avoid making the feedback personal or overly critical. Concentrate on the work and its improvement, not on the individual.

Steer Clear of Subjective Opinions : Base your feedback on objective criteria and avoid opinions that may not be universally applicable.

Resist Overloading with Suggestions : While offering suggestions for improvement is important, overwhelming the recipient with a laundry list of changes can be counterproductive.

Don’t Skip Follow-Up : Once you’ve provided feedback, don’t leave the process incomplete. Follow up and engage in a constructive dialogue to ensure that the feedback is understood and applied effectively.

Remember that the art of giving peer review feedback is a valuable skill, and when done right, it can foster professional growth, foster collaboration, and inspire continuous improvement. This is where performance management software like Peoplebox come into play.

Start Collecting Peer Review Feedback On Peoplebox 

In a world where the continuous improvement of your workforce is paramount, harnessing the potential of peer review feedback is a game-changer. Peoplebox offers a suite of powerful features that revolutionize performance management, simplifying the alignment of people with business goals and driving success. 

Through Peoplebox, you can effortlessly establish peer reviews, customizing key aspects such as:

• Allowing the reviewee to select their peers
• Seeking managerial approval for chosen peers to mitigate bias
• Determining the number of peers eligible for review, and more.

And the best part? Peoplebox lets you do all this from right within Slack.

Peer Review Feedback Template That You Can Use Right Away

Still on the fence about using software for performance reviews? Here’s a quick ready-to-use peer review template you can use to kickstart the peer review process.

Download the Free Peer Review Feedback Form here.

If you ever reconsider and are looking for a more streamlined approach to handle 360 feedback, give Peoplebox a shot!

Table of Contents

What’s Next?

Get Peoplebox Demo

Get a 30-min. personalized demo of our OKR, Performance Management and People Analytics Platform Schedule Now

Take Product Tour

Watch a product tour to see how Peoplebox makes goals alignment, performance management and people analytics seamless. Take a product tour

Subscribe to our blog & newsletter

Popular Categories

• One on Ones
• People Analytics
• Employee Engagement
• Strategy Execution
• Remote Work

Recent Blogs

Strategic Guide to Navigating Reduction in Force (RIF)

Top 10 Benefits of Performance Management

HR’s Pocket Guide to Democratising People Data in 2024

• Performance Reviews
• Performance Reviews in Slack
• OKRs (Aligned Goals)
• 1:1 Meetings
• Business Reviews
• Automated Engagement Survey
• Anonymous Messaging
• Engagement Insights
• Integrations
• Why Peoplebox
• Our Customers
• Customer Success Stories
• Product Tours
• Peoplebox Analytics Talk
• The Peoplebox Pulse Newsletter
• OKR Podcast
• OKR Examples
• One-on-one-meeting questions
• Performance Review Templates
• Request Demo
• Help Center
• Careers (🚀 We are hiring)
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• GDPR Compliance
• Data Processing Addendum
• Responsible Disclosure
• Cookies Policy

Share this blog

Quicklinks ‍

Peer review examples: 50+ effective phrases for next review.

Let's face it: giving feedback can be challenging, especially when it comes to peer reviews.

As a peer, you're in a unique position to provide constructive feedback to your colleagues. You want to help them grow and develop. But finding the right words to use is no walk in the park.

🙋 We're here to help you ensure your feedback is effective and actionable.

We collected a comprehensive peer review sample: 50+ effective review phrases to use in your next performance or skill review, helping you provide feedback that's supportive, constructive, and inspiring. You'll find peer review phrases for positive performance and constructive peer review feedback examples.

Plus, we've also included tips for giving peer review feedback (and how not to do it), supported by multiple peer feedback examples.

❓ What are peer review feedback examples?

Peer review feedback is part of an  employee's development and performance process and an essential component of 360 feedback.

Performance reviews are a key of 360 degree feedback systems and can be the difference between a happy employee and one who is just going through the motions.

Think of peer reviews as a thermometer that measures an employee's performance, skills, abilities, or attitudes by their fellow co-workers and team members.

As part of a wider performance management system , peer reviews help an organization in the following ways:

• 🎯 Can be used as a goal-setting opportunity.
• 🔎 Peer feedback helps identify the strengths and weaknesses of individual employees, teams, and the company as a whole.
• 🌱 Suggestions from peers can help employees and team members develop personally and professionally .
• 🔗 Boost employee motivation and satisfaction and strengthen trust and collaboration within the team .
• 📈 Through peer reviews, employees can receive constructive criticism and solutions on how they can work to meet the company's expectations and contribute to its growth.

🌟 33 Positive peer review feedback examples

We structured these positive feedback samples into competency-specific examples and job performance -specific examples.

🗣️ Communication skills

• "You effectively communicate with colleagues, customers, vendors, supervisors, and partners. You are a key driver of our high customer satisfaction scores."
• "You are an excellent communicator, and you are adept at discussing difficult issues effectively and straight to the point."
• "Tom has excellent communication skills and always keeps the team up-to-date on his progress, ensuring the team is always on the same page."
• "John is an excellent mentor who is always willing to share his knowledge and experience with others, providing guidance and support when needed."
• "Your approach to giving peer feedback is exemplary. You have a knack for delivering constructive insights in a manner that fosters growth and understanding. Your peers, including myself, value the way you phrase your feedback to be actionable and uplifting."

🤝 Teamwork & collaboration

• "I appreciate the way you collaborate with your team and cross-functionally to find solutions to problems."
• "You're an effective team member, as demonstrated by your willingness to help out and contribute as required."
• "Sarah is a true team player who always helps out her colleagues. She consistently meets deadlines and produces work of a high standard."
• "Bob is an excellent collaborator and has built strong relationships with his colleagues. He actively seeks out opportunities to share knowledge and support others on the team."

🤗 Mentoring & support

• "I appreciate that you never make your team members feel belittled even when they ask the simplest questions. You're eager to help, and you're exceptional at mentoring when people need advice."
• "I appreciate how Julie is always willing to share her knowledge and expertise with others. She is an excellent resource for the team and is always happy to help out when someone needs guidance."

😊 Positivity & attitude

• "I appreciate how Sarah always brings a positive attitude to the team. She is always willing to help out and support others, and her enthusiasm is infectious."
• "I appreciate how Maria always takes the time to build relationships with her colleagues. She is friendly and approachable, and she has a talent for bringing people together."
• "I appreciate how you remain calm under pressure and greet customers with a smile."

🙏 Professionalism & work ethics

• "I admire how you uphold organizational standards for inclusion, diversity, and ethics."
• "I appreciate how John builds relationships with clients and colleagues. He is always professional and courteous, and he has a natural talent for making people feel comfortable and valued."
• "I appreciate how David always takes a thoughtful and considered approach to his work. He is always looking for ways to improve his performance and is never satisfied with simply meeting the bare minimum."

⭐ Quality of work & performance

• "Your copy-editing skills are excellent. You always ensure that all articles published by the content marketing team are thoroughly edited and proofed, which is very important here at (COMPANY)."
• "You've improved XX by XYZ%, and you've streamlined the work process by doing XYZ."
• "John has a great eye for detail and consistently produces high work quality. I appreciate the way he is always happy to lend a hand to others when needed and proactively offers ideas to improve processes."
• "Karen is a fast learner and has a keen eye for detail, making her a valuable asset to the team."
• "I can always count on you to give our customers the best customer experience, and I appreciate the way you go over and beyond for them."

🚀 Innovation & initiative

• "You are always suggesting new ideas in meetings and during projects. Well done!"
• "You constantly show initiative by developing new ways of thinking to improve projects and overall company success."
• "Jane has been doing an excellent job with her projects, and her creativity and innovative ideas have helped move the team forward."
• "Samantha has a creative approach to problem-solving, and I have noticed that she often comes up with unique and innovative solutions to complex challenges."

🌱 Self-improvement & learning

• "You are constantly open to learning and ask for more training when you don't understand XYZ processes."
• "You accept coaching when things aren't clear and apply what you learned to improve XYZ ability."
• "David is a role model for the rest of the team with his continuous self-improvement mindset and focus on developing his skills and expertise."
• "I appreciate how Karen is always looking for ways to improve her work and is never satisfied with the status quo. She is a great role model for the rest of the team."

💼 Leadership skills

• "You show great leadership signs by owning up to mistakes and errors, fixing them, and communicating with others (quickly) when you're unable to meet a deadline."
• "During our recent project, I noticed how effectively you lead the team. Your ability to listen to everyone's input, make decisions promptly, and delegate tasks was truly commendable. The team felt both supported and empowered under your guidance."
• "Your leadership during challenging times is admirable. You remain calm, focused, and provide clarity when most needed. This not only keeps the team aligned but also instills a sense of trust and security amongst us."

😥 23 Examples of effective  negative performance peer review examples

All of the above are peer review examples for positive performance .

But it's not always that we only have good things to share.

So, what happens when you want to give negative feedback in cases of low or disappointing performance?

If handled rightly, negative feedback can improve an employee's performance . The key is giving criticism constructively.

📉 Overall employee performance

• "While your presentations are always well-researched and insightful, they can sometimes run longer than scheduled, which affects subsequent agenda items. For future projects, consider practicing time management during meetings or working on summarizing key points more concisely."
• "I've noticed that you often work late hours to meet deadlines. While your commitment is commendable, it's crucial to balance workload and ensure that tasks are spread out adequately. Perhaps adopting a more structured approach to project management or seeking delegation opportunities could help prevent last-minute rushes."
• "I've observed that while you excel in your core tasks, there's occasionally a delay in responding to emails or returning calls. This sometimes causes minor setbacks in our project timelines. It might be beneficial to set aside dedicated times during the day for communication or using a tool to manage and prioritize your inbox."

🧠 Mindset & perspective

• "You seem to focus more on what can't be done instead of offering solutions. I would like to see you develop an open mindset and work alongside our teammates on brainstorming solutions."
• "Jane has strong ideas but could work on being more open-minded and considering the perspectives of others to create a more collaborative work environment. I highly encourage her to actively listen to others' ideas and provide constructive feedback. As a result, I think she will become a better collaborator."
• "Lisa seems to stick to familiar routines and processes and be resistant to change. I think that she could benefit from being more open to change and new ways of doing things to encourage growth and innovation for the team. For a concrete suggestion, I would recommend for her to exchange ideas with new team members with different backgrounds or skill sets to broaden her perspective and challenge her existing ideas."
• "I think your ideas are really creative and valuable, but I've noticed that you sometimes struggle to communicate them effectively in meetings. I think it would be helpful for you to practice presenting your ideas to a smaller group or one-on-one, and to ask for feedback from your colleagues on how you can improve your communication skills."
• "Greg tends to be unclear or vague in his messaging, causing confusion and misunderstandings. I encourage him to practice active listening techniques such as asking questions to clarify understanding, and summarizing the conversation."
• "I've observed challenges in your approach to communicating with remote workers. At times, there seems to be a disconnect or delay in relaying vital information, which has led to inefficiencies and misunderstandings. It might be beneficial to revisit your communication tools and strategies to ensure that everyone, regardless of their location, stays informed and aligned."
• "I appreciate your attention to detail and your commitment to producing high-quality work, but I've noticed that you sometimes struggle to take feedback or suggestions from others. I think it would be helpful for you to practice being more open to feedback and to work on developing your collaboration skills."
• "Frank often puts his personal goals above the team's objectives, causing conflict and tension in the workplace. He could work on being more of a team player and prioritizing the team's objectives over personal goals to avoid conflict and tension and help the team meet our goals faster. For example, I would like him to attend our team-building activities or events to help build stronger relationships within our team."

⏰ Time management & meeting deadlines

• "I've noticed that you're having difficulty meeting your deadlines. I think it would be helpful for you to break down your tasks into smaller, more manageable pieces, and to communicate with fellow colleagues if you need more time or support to complete your work."
• "Alex could benefit from developing better time management skills to prioritize tasks effectively and avoid delays and missed deadlines. I think that with the right time management training and resources, he will discover time saving processes."

🛠️ Task execution & quality

• ‍ "I noticed you aren't meeting your targets. Let's get on a call in two days to go over your cold email strategy . Perhaps you can use an email verification tool to validate prospects' addresses." ‍
• ‍ "Jim could benefit from working on his organization skills and prioritizing his workload to avoid missed deadlines and inconvenience for the team. He could work on creating a system to better manage his workload and set reminders for important deadlines."
• "Although he is very fast at handling customer requests, Tim is not detail-oriented and often overlooks important aspects of a project, leading to mistakes and oversights. One idea for improving his attention to detail while maintaining his fast response time could be to implement a system of double-checking or quality control." ‍

📈 Explore 45 performance review phrases and extra tips and tricks for giving better performance feedback.

💼 Professionalism & attitude ‍

• ‍ "Peter could benefit from improving his professionalism in the workplace and avoiding negative or gossipy conversations that create tension. I think that focusing on more positive and constructive interactions with colleagues could help create a better work environment and work relationships."
• "Samantha can be confrontational and abrasive, making it difficult for others to work with her. She could work on being more approachable and collaborative. One way to do so is by practicing active listening and binge more mindful of how she communicates with others."

🌱 Personal development & growth

• "I appreciate the effort you're putting in, but I've noticed that you're struggling with certain tasks. I think it would be helpful for you to receive additional training or guidance in those areas."
• "Sarah has great potential but there is room for improvement, especially with regards to seeking out opportunities to contribute and taking initiative on tasks. I think she could benefit from setting goals and creating a plan to take more ownership of her work."

• "During team meetings, it would be beneficial if you could encourage other team members (especially quiet ones) to voice their opinions. When a few individuals dominate the discussions, it might be stifling innovative ideas from others."
• "I've noticed you generally give feedback in group settings. It would be more effective and respectful to provide constructive criticism in private to avoid any unnecessary embarrassment or tension amongst the team."
• "When receiving feedback, I've observed that you sometimes become defensive or dismissive. Truly embracing feedback can catalyze growth and development. It might be beneficial to explore methods or strategies that foster a more open and accepting attitude towards feedback."

🌱 Use your peer's feedback to create a development plan to set the path for growth? First, set concrete professional development goals . Then, define the concrete steps that will make your goals a reality.

📝 How do you write a peer review: Does & don'ts for giving feedback to peers

The following steps will help you learn how to write a peer review for your co-workers.

For each step, we included positive peer feedback examples and negative peer feedback examples.

By following these guidelines, giving quality feedback should no longer feel like an intimidating task.

1. Think about their work

Before writing your peer review, think about your colleagues' contribution to the workplace.

Then, to get you started, ask yourself the following questions?

• What are their strengths? What are their weaknesses?
• How can they improve?
• What are their latest accomplishments?
• What do I like or appreciate about them?
• What do I wish they did less? What do I want them to do more?
• What are their expected competencies? (In case your company uses a competency model ).

🔴 DO NOT  make the peer review personal. Try to avoid using "I" such as "I don't like..." or "I'm not comfortable with..." when giving constructive feedback.

🟢 DO Tie your comments to the goal of the peer review and not your personal references.

👎 "I don't really pay attention to what John does, so I can't say much about his work."

This peer review example is not helpful or constructive feedback because it doesn't provide any specific information or insights about John's work or his abilities. The feedback is vague and non-specific.

This kind of feedback is not only unhelpful, but it can also be demotivating and discouraging for John. He may feel that his contributions are not valued or recognized.

Recognition is something that people need to stay motivated and engaged. Last thing you want is to disengage and demotivate your peers.

👍 "John has a great eye for detail and consistently produces high-quality work. I appreciate his ability to prioritize tasks and his willingness to help others when needed."

This peer review sample is a good peer review example. It acknowledges John's strengths and provides specific examples of his skills and abilities.

The reviewer highlights John's ability to produce high-quality work, his attention to detail, and his willingness to help others, which are all positive attributes that contribute to the team's success.

👎 "I don't like the way that Mary interacts with others on the team. She can be really abrasive and confrontational, which makes it difficult to work with her."

This peer review example is overly negative and vague, providing no specific information or insights that could help the colleague improve. It also uses emotionally charged language that can be interpreted as a personal attack rather than constructive feedback.

The feedback is also specific and actionable, which can help John continue to excel in his work and contribute to a positive work environment.

👍 "I've noticed that Mary sometimes comes across as confrontational or abrasive in team meetings, which can create tension and make it difficult to collaborate effectively. I think it would be helpful for Mary to work on developing more positive and collaborative communication skills, such as active listening and empathy, to build more positive relationships with her colleagues."

This is another good peer review example because it acknowledges Jane's strengths and accomplishments while also providing specific and actionable feedback on areas for improvement.

By focusing on specific behaviors that Mary can improve, such as organization and task prioritization, the feedback is constructive and helpful for Jane. It also provides her with specific strategies for growth and development in her role, which can help her to continue to excel in her work.

Overall, this kind of feedback can be a powerful tool for helping colleagues to grow and develop in their roles, and for promoting a more collaborative work environment.

2. Be mindful of your colleague's feelings

While it's okay to give constructive feedback and share your honest thoughts on a peer review, you should communicate your opinions professionally without being rude or insulting.

Also, instead of constantly reiterating their weaknesses, let their strengths shine and think of solutions that could motivate them to do better.

🟢 DO be mindful of the tone of your feedback. Using harsh or judgmental language can damage relationships and create a negative work environment.

🔴 DO NOT  use condescending language when evaluating your colleague's performance.

Let's look at some peer feedback examples.

👎 "I don't believe my colleague can function effectively in this job."

👎 "I'm not really sure what Mary does around here. She seems to just be coasting and not really contributing much to the team."

👎 " Mary's work is consistently subpar and it's frustrating to work with her. She needs to work harder."

These are poor example of peer feedback because they are overly negative and do not provide any actionable steps for the person receiving the feedback to improve their performance.

Words like "subpar" and "frustrating" can be hurtful and demotivating, and don't give any specific information on what exactly Mary needs to improve on or how to do so.

👍 "While there's room for improvement, I appreciate the effort Mary puts into her work. I think she could benefit from more training and guidance on how to prioritize tasks."

👍 "I think Mary has the potential to be a great team member, but she could benefit from improving her communication skills. I would suggest that she work on being more clear and direct in her interactions with others."

These are better examples of constructive peer feedback because they acknowledges Mary's effort and provides specific steps for improvement. The reviewer uses more positive language to acknowledge that Mary is trying, and suggests that training and guidance could help her prioritize tasks more effectively or her communication.

The positive examples are more specific, actionable, and solution-focused, and are more likely to lead to improved performance and a more positive work environment.

By focusing on specific areas for improvement and suggesting a way forward, the feedback provides Mary with a clear path to success and encourages her to continue working hard to improve her skills.

3. Explain in detail

While your goal, when given a peer review form, is to focus solely on a particular area of your co-worker's performance, it won't help them in the long run.

🟢 DO share a comprehensive review helps your manager identify their areas of improvement and helps your colleague understand how others view their overall performance at work.

🔴 DO NOT focus on a single event or project. Discuss how they operate daily and their attitudes to work.

Do they have excellent communication skills?

Are they great at communicating with people?

How do they approach brainstorming sessions or when asked to handle complex tasks? 

🔴 DO NOT  critique every tiny detail about your colleague's performance. For example, a colleague's approach to handling a difficult task may be to take some time away from everyone or work and come up with answers than yours.

🟢 DO Understand and appreciate that everyone has different working styles, and it makes up their personalities and who they are.

Let's analyze some concrete peer review feedback examples.

👎 "Samantha's work is good."

👎 "Jane is a great teammate. Great work."

For the negative examples of peer review comments, the feedback is too vague. It doesn't provide enough detail for the recipient to be actionable or meaningful.

👍 "Samantha has great communication skills and is always willing to step in and help others. She excels at problem-solving and is able to stay calm under pressure."

👍 "I really appreciate Jane's ability to stay calm under pressure and help us problem-solve when things get tough. She's always willing to pitch in and go above and beyond to make sure the team succeeds, whether it's taking on extra work or providing a listening ear when someone needs to vent."

For the positive examples of peer review comments, the reviewer provides specific examples of the colleague's behavior and how it positively impacts the team. As a result, the feedback is more meaningful; the receiving peer can use to continue to be a great teammate in the future.

👎 "I can't believe how poorly Tom handled the client meeting last week. He was disorganized and unprepared, and it was clear that the client was not impressed.

This example of peer review feedback is overly negative and strictly refers to a single event. There is no indication that John always displays the same behavior. It also does not acknowledge any strengths or positive attributes that Tom may possess, which can make the feedback feel overly harsh and unfair.

👍 "I think Tom has a lot of potential, but I have noticed that he tends to struggle with giving presentations. I think it would be helpful for him to work on his preparation and public speaking skills, perhaps by attending a workshop or training session. With some additional support and training, I believe Tom could continue to grow in his role and make a positive impact on the team."

In this example, the reviewer does not refer to a single event but to a recurring behavior. By providing specific feedback and actionable steps for improvement, the feedback is more constructive and helpful for the colleague. It also focuses on growth and development rather than criticism and negativity.

This is what we call an effective peer reviewer.

4. Write clearly

Summarize what you've noticed about your co-worker's performance.

🟢 DO mention areas of improvement you've noticed and highlight areas you hope you see their work on in the future.

🔴 DO NOT beat around the bush with your answers during peer reviews.

Ensure your answers are clear, concise, and easy to understand.

👎 "Brian is fine, I guess."

This peer review doesn't provide any specific information or insights about Brian's work or his abilities.

There is a clear example of non-effective feedback. There is nothing actionable for Brian. Even if, on the surface, the reviewer did not share anything negative, there is no take-away for the reviewee.

👍 "I've noticed that Brian has been taking on more responsibilities lately and doing a great job. I think he could benefit from more opportunities to showcase his leadership skills and contribute to larger projects."

This peer review sample is a good example of constructive feedback. It acknowledges Brian's growth and contributions to the team, and suggests opportunities for him to further develop his skills and take on more responsibility.

By acknowledging that Brian has been taking on more responsibilities and doing a great job, the feedback is specific and provides actionable steps for Brian to continue to excel in his role.

👎 "I think Mary is a good worker overall, but there are some things she could improve on. Maybe she could be more organized or something."

👍 "I have noticed that Mary tends to struggle with prioritizing her tasks and meeting deadlines. To help her improve in these areas, I think it would be helpful for her to work on creating more detailed to-do lists or setting reminders for herself. Additionally, I think Mary could benefit from some additional training or support in project management skills."

📜 Templates you can use for you next peer review

Employee peer review templates for annual performance reviews

While there are different ways to create a peer review template, we recommend using Google Docs or Microsoft Word. Not only are they easier to use, but they are free too. With these two online document creation tools, you can say goodbye to purchasing expensive peer review templates or downloading special software.

Here is our free Google Forms template you can give colleagues to send each other meaningful feedback.

• 🌱 Make it as easy as possible for people to give each other meaningful feedback.
• 🧩 It's 100% customizable so you can truly make it your own.

➡️ Download your free peer review feedback form here.

You could also use Zavvy's feedback tool to collect peer reviews.

With Zavvy, you can create peer review forms that are relevant to the department or job.

For example, peer review forms for sales representatives, customer support specialists, or receptionists should focus on soft skills. In contrast, a Cybersecurity engineer or software developer might focus on technical skills.

This means that you'll need some kind of sheet that outlines your peer's competencies.

Don't forget to leave blank spaces on your peer review forms to allow the reviewers to add important yet overlooked topics.

If you're using Zavvy, you can either have reviewees choose their peers themselves - or have managers do it for them.

➡️ Facilitate feedback and growth with Zavvy

When implemented and done right, peer reviews can offer insights that you might never have otherwise discovered and increase an employees' performance.

Zavvy makes collecting feedback a breeze . With just a few clicks, you will have recurring feedback cycles.

• Select the types of feedback you want to collect - any combination of self-review , downward, upward feedback, or peer reviews.
• Customize the survey forms for each feedback type (Or use one of our ready-to-use templates ).
• Define your anonymity settings (Should all feedback be anonymous ?)
• Decide if you want to include a performance calibration step .
• Select the participants for your review cycle (For example, Taktile automates feedback cycles for their new hires at the 6 week, 12 week, and 18 week of their new hire journeys).
• Define the timeline for writing, nomination and feedback sharing tasks.
• Double-check all the details and activate your cycle 🏁 .

But, it's one thing to collect peer review feedback, and it's a different ballgame to use it to propel employee growth.

Don't leave your employees wondering what comes next.

Instead, roll out learning and development programs to improve their skills and put them on the right career path .

📅 Want to ensure a cycle of continuous development and grow your people? Book a demo  today.

Keke is Zavvy's expert in learning experience. On our blog, she shares experience and insights based on her studies in learning design and experiences made with our customers.

Als Nächstes lesen

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

169 Beyond “Good Job!”: How Online Peer Review Platforms Improved My Students’ Writing and Made My Life Easier

by Liza Long

“Good job!” “Nice work!” “I think you need a comma here.”

Most instructors are familiar with these types of student comments during peer review. Nearly every composition instructor uses peer review in the classroom because we know that this activity is important. Brammer and Rees note that all experienced instructors recommend peer review to new instructors, yet both students and instructors are often unhappy with both the peer review process and the results. However, composition scholars have reached consensus that “the composing process is social, and peer review is an integral part of that process” (Brammer and Reese, 72). In an online environment, promoting student engagement can be especially challenging.

What does peer review look like in your classroom? In my face to face classes, I used to put students in groups and ask them to print out multiple copies of their drafts, then use a rubric that I created to have them check their peers’ work, with a vague student-directed “workshop” style discussion after the rubrics were complete. In an online class, I used a peer review discussion board, asking students to post their drafts and complete those same instructor-created peer review templates on each other’s work. But what were my students really learning through these peer review activities? Did peer review improve their writing? How could I make peer review a transferable skill?

One challenge I face with constructing meaningful peer review is that my students come from diverse backgrounds and reach my course with dramatically different previous academic experiences. I teach at the College of Western Idaho, the largest college in our state, with more than 24,000 students. Our two-year commuter college provides education to a wide variety of learners, from traditional students seeking a lower-cost option for their general education coursework to career and technical education students who are required to complete a written communication requirement. My English 102 Rhetoric and Composition classes, capped at 26 students, typically include a diverse mix from a variety of majors: traditional learners, adult learners, English language learners, and even dual credit high school students.

In  2017, on the recommendation of my colleague Meagan Newberry, I took a risk and tried out my first online peer review platform, Eli Review. I quickly learned that online platforms play an important role in facilitating more meaningful peer review experiences while also saving time for instructors. We are now feeling a new sense of urgency about online tools because the sudden shift to online learning precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic during the Spring 2020 term made many of us rethink our traditional approaches to instruction. Online peer review is one tool that all instructors should consider. In a study of online peer review, Hicks et al. noted online platforms can provide engaging and enriching peer review experiences, but that the way instructors frame online peer review assignments is critical to the quality of feedback that student peers provide, and that “chunking” writing assignments leads to higher-quality feedback. In this essay, I’ll share my experience with two online peer review tools and explain how the iterative and constructive process of online peer review has transformed my students’ writing while also promoting critical thinking skills that prepare them for the workplace—and saving me time in the process.

Two Peer Review Platforms: Eli Review and Peergrade

After a colleague’s enthusiastic recommendation as noted above, I began using Eli Review, an online peer review platform, in 2017 for both my online and hybrid classes. I later adopted it for face-to face classes as well, dedicating one classroom day each week to the peer review drafting and revising process. In 2019, I piloted a peer review platform called Peergrade, which is the platform I currently use. I currently use Peergrade in my English 101 Writing and Rhetoric I, English 102 Writing and Rhetoric II, and English 211 Literary Analysis (advanced writing requirement) course s. I use the peer review tool differently in each course. For English 101, where we are focusing on using sources to support arguments in academic essays, I use Peergrade as an iterative writing and feedback tool to help students learn to craft paragraphs and draft thesis statements. In English 211, I use it for a more traditional peer review, asking students to assess each other’s literary analysis essay drafts using the grading rubric. Peergrade is a major component of my English 102 course design, so I will focus on that course as I share what has worked for me.

Both Eli Review and Peergrade function in similar ways. Eli Review is available as a low-cost subscription to students and offers a stand-alone website. Students purchase the subscription at the campus bookstore or online. According to Eli Review’s website , a three month subscription to the service is $12.50 per student. I switched to Peergrade because we have an institutional license and it integrates with our LMS (Blackboard), which means that students can access the platform directly from our Blackboard class. At the College of Western Idaho, we do not currently pass the Peergrade license cost on to our students. For Peergrade, students are automatically enrolled. With Eli Review, they have to enroll in a course I create using their school email accounts. Both tools allow instructors to collect data on student engagement and performance. While I personally think that Eli Review is a slightly superior tool with a better graphical interface, data analytics, and user experience, the LMS integration and the lower cost for students made it easy to switch to Peergrade. Both platforms offer excellent client support and are responsive to instructor feedback.

Introducing the Online Peer Review Platform and Process

I introduce the online peer review platform on the first day of class. My students’ first writing task for the platform is also my first week writing assessment:

In 2-3 paragraphs, describe how much experience you have with peer review and academic writing, how you worked with peers (in pairs, groups, etc.), and how you interacted (reading essays out loud, group conversations, etc.). Describe in detail the kinds of feedback you received from your reviewers, but also the kind of feedback you gave to the people you reviewed. Did you find that the feedback you received was useful? If not, what would make feedback more useful to you as a writer?

When I am teaching hybrid or face to face classes, we respond to this prompt in class together using our college’s laptop cart, giving students the opportunity to try the online peer review platform with my support. For online classes, I provide and record a brief tutorial throughout my LMS to walk students through the submission process. This prompt gives me the opportunity to create a baseline of peer review experience and attitudes for the class. Hicks et al. note that this kind of background research into students’ experiences with and cultural assumptions about peer review is an important first step in framing high-quality peer review tasks.

In our next class session (or the next week online), I introduce the peer review process and explain how it will work in our course. Teaching students what peer review is and how they are expected to do it is an evidence based practice. For example, Brammer and Reese note that students who receive instruction in how to peer review feel more confident in their abilities and have more positive experiences with the peer review process. After discussing my students’ writing submissions and addressing any concerns they have about peer review, I ask them to share examples of where they encounter reviews in their daily lives. In fact, reviews and surveys are nearly ubiquitous. We can’t even purchase a new pen on Amazon without being asked to review our shopping experience. Students quickly generate workplace examples of peer review: for example, their work is reviewed by supervisors, or if they themselves are supervisors, they may have to review others. Through this initial discussion, students establish the “why” of peer review. They also start thinking about the “what.” Are we just looking for misplaced commas? Or are we ensuring that the meaning of the essay is clear to the reader? As instructors who have created peer review rubrics know, establishing criteria for a review is not an easy task.

Using the Peer Review Platform for Writing and Revising

Each week, my students have an assigned writing task. They complete the writing task by Sunday for face to face and hybrid courses, then complete their assigned peer reviews before our next on-ground class. In online classes, I set a midweek deadline for writing tasks and a Sunday deadline for review tasks. Both Eli Review and Peergrade allow the instructor to set parameters for reviews, including the number of reviews required, whether or not the reviews will be anonymous, and whether late work is allowed. In my classes, we decide together whether to use anonymous feedback. In peer review, students are asked to identify required traits in their peers’ essays, then evaluate the essays on defined criteria. I also ask students to provide a final comment using the “Describe-Evaluate-Suggest” model of peer feedback as explained by Eli Review here . While I do not comment on every assignment, I use some of these formative assignments to ensure that the students are on task and understand the goal of the essay we are working on. For an example of my exploratory research weekly tasks and rubrics, including a student-created essay draft rubric, see Appendix I.

Learning to rate each other’s feedback has required norming exercises. Baker has noted that one area of concern for faculty is whether students are capable of giving high quality feedback. I ask students to rate each peer’s final comment on the five-star helpfulness scale, based on how well it meets Eli Review’s “Describe/Evaluate/Suggest” model for feedback.

• Five stars = Will transform the writer’s draft: all three parts are included, are specific, and the reviewer went above and beyond.
• Three stars = Solid, helpful, specific, and includes all three pieces.
• One star = May not include any aspects of the model or be too vague to be helpful.

Initially, peer feedback scores tend to skew high. We look at anonymized examples to discuss the kinds of comments that are truly helpful. I also spotlight “feedback stars” with examples of high-quality feedback at the beginning of class when we debrief about the week’s writing and review assignments.

The bulk of my students’ course grade now comes from peer review. Rather than grading individual essay drafts, I assign 100 points to each essay’s peer review tasks. Part of the grade depends on how students rate their peers’ submissions, and another part of the grade depends on how their peers rate the quality of their feedback. Both Eli Review and Peergrade allow students to numerically assess each other’s work and each other’s feedback. As noted above, I expect that students will provide feedback that is helpful at a “three stars” level (out of five) to earn full credit for their reviews. Baker’s study of a four-week peer review process supports this approach for high-quality feedback. See Appendix 2 for a rubric and examples of student feedback.

I do not provide an evaluative grade (other than complete/incomplete) for any of my students’ essays until they submit their final portfolios at the end of the semester. One of my colleagues, Meagan Newberry, uses a similar peer review approach with a grading contract proposed by Asao Inoue in his book Antiracist Writing Assessment Ecologies . In Newberry’s class, students who complete their writing and review tasks at the expected “three star” level earn a B in the course; for an A, students must complete an additional assignment.

How Students Responded to Online Platforms

I have seen improvement in student engagement and satisfaction as I have become more familiar with these online tools. In Fall 2016, the semester before I started using online peer review platforms, only 50% (12/24) students completed the end of course survey, with 100% expressing that they were “satisfied” (17%) or “very satisfied” (83%) with the course. Their comments tended to focus more on me as an instructor and less on their own writing process. In the first semester in which I taught the course using an online peer review platform, my student evaluations were less positive: I had a 44% response rate for my end of course evaluations, and 90% of the students who completed the end-of-course survey expressed that they were “satisfied”(10%) or “very satisfied ”(81%) with the course, and 9% rating their experience as “neutral.”

In Spring 2018, after I had used online platforms for one year and refined the peer review feedback process, 60% (15/25) of my students completed the end of course survey, with 100% reporting that they were either “satisfied” (27%) or “very satisfied” (73%). Seven commenters specifically mentioned Eli Review as a reason that they enjoyed the course. In 2019, after I switched to the LMS-integrated PeerGrade platform, 67% (14/21) students completed their end of course survey, again with 100% reporting that they were “satisfied” (35%) or “very satisfied” (65%) with the course. While none of the students mentioned Peergrade in their comments, many of them commented on how their writing had improved. I think there’s a possibility that students prefer the user experience of Eli Review to Peergrade, which may account for the lower numbers of “very satisfied” students as well as the fact that the online platform was not mentioned in student comments.

Spring 2020 was a special case for all of us, and I did not have high expectations for my course evaluations. While fewer students completed their end-of-course surveys, all three of my sections finished the year strong despite the challenges of COVID-19 and moving online. In one section, 13/22 students (59%) completed the end of course survey, with 100% reporting that they were very satisfied (53%) or satisfied (46%) with the course. Honestly, given the fact that none of these students had signed up for what became an online course, I am proud of this assessment. In their final comments, students noted that they had learned the revision process and that they were proud of their final portfolios and the work they had accomplished. Not a single student complained about the move from hybrid to online in their comments.

What I Have Learned from My Students’ Online Peer Review Experiences

While I was initially hesitant to try this new tool because I was concerned about the time involved in learning a new system, using online peer review platforms has transformed the way I teach my English 102 courses. These platforms provide structure and organization to support student writing, and they foster a collaborative classroom experience in hybrid and online courses. Here are some of my top takeaways after three years of using this type of peer review:

• Using an online platform for peer review can provide engagement and accountability, allowing for more constructive feedback from classmates. When students write for an audience of their peers, they try harder. My students consistently report high levels of engagement with the course and each other. As Baker notes, “Research consistently demonstrates that engaging students in the feedback process improves the quality of students’ final submissions” (180).
• For hybrid or online classes, these platforms are especially valuable. For example, during the quick switch from hybrid to fully online courses precipitated by COVID-19 in the Spring 2020 term, our peer review platform provided continuity and a simple way for me to check that students were completing their regular assignments. Students told me that my courses felt “normal” to them, which was reassuring in a time when so many other areas of their lives were changing.
• The peer review process supports student writing because it reinforces the iterative nature of the writing process. Students break essay tasks into chunks, then incorporate these chunks into the larger essay project (Baker, Hicks et al.).
• The online peer feedback platform provides an easy way for me to give early feedback on formative assessments so that I can intervene and make writing center referrals for students who were struggling with course concepts like thesis statements, source use, or paragraph unity.
• Students learn to create their own assessment rubrics, enabling them to think more critically about their rhetorical process. This metacognition helps to reinforce the rhetorical situation for each essay that I teach (see Appendix I: Week Four Peer Review, Student Created Rubric).

Ultimately  , I have concluded based on my experiences that using the online platform’s writing and review process has led to stronger student essays with less time spent on my part Because students know that a large portion of their grade depends on their revisions, they feel free to take more creative risks with their work. They choose more difficult topics for their exploratory and persuasive essays, and they learn to embrace the idea that writing an academic essay is a process. Students have reported high levels of satisfaction with both Eli Review and Peergrade in every course where I have used these online platforms. Most importantly, these tools have saved me time as an instructor while also increasing students’ perception of my engagement. Overall, I give online peer review platforms five out of five stars.

Works Cited

Baker, Kimberly M. “Peer Review as a Strategy for Improving Students’ Writing Process.”  Active Learning in Higher Education  17.3 (2016): 179-192. https://www.hendrix.edu/uploadedFiles/Academics/Faculty_Resources/Faculty_Development_Newsletters/Peer-review-student-writing.pdf

Brammer, Charlotte, and Mary Rees. “Peer Review from the Students’ Perspective: Invaluable or Invalid?.”  Composition Studies  35.2 (2007): 71-85. https://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/journals/composition-studies/docs/backissues/35-2/Brammer%20and%20Rees%2035.2.pdf

Eli Review. “The Describe-Evaluate-Suggest Model of Peer Feedback.” (2016) https://elireview.com/2016/08/03/describe-evaluate-suggest/

Hicks, Catherine M., et al. “Framing Feedback: Choosing Review Environment Features that Support High Quality Peer Assessment.”  Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 2016. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2858036.2858195

Inoue, Asao B. Antiracist Writing Assessment Ecologies: Teaching and Assessing Writing for a Socially Just Future. Parlor Press (2015). https://wac.colostate.edu/books/perspectives/inoue/

Peergrade. “Getting Started.” https://www.peergrade.io/getting-started/

Appendix I: Exploratory Research Essay Writing Tasks and Peer Review Rubrics

Week one writing task.

Post your narrowed and focused research question for Essay One (Exploratory Research) here. Then write 2-3 paragraphs explaining why you chose this topic and what you expect to find in your research. Your instructor will provide you with feedback on this assignment.

Week One Peer Review Rubric

Trait Identification

• The research question is phrased as a single question. (Y/N)
• The research question is focused (not too broad, not too narrow) *Y/N)
• The research question is objective (does not take sides). Y/N
• The research question is appropriate for a 6-8 page college essay. Y/N Please comment on your response.

I would like to read a paper that answers this research question.

• Wow, this paper will change my life!

Please comment on any part of the research question that you think could be improved using the Describe-Evaluate-Suggest model. For example, is the question objective, or does it contain value statements (words that have positive or negative connotations)? Is the topic too broad or too narrow? If so, suggest a way to narrow or expand the topic. If you know of a good source for this question, feel free to share it! Your response must be at least 75 words in length.

Week Two Writing Task: Academic Article Summary and APA Style Reference

• Choose one academic source you plan to use for your exploratory research essay.
• Summarize the source in 5-6 sentences.
• Use at least one template from Chapters 1-3 of  They Say/I Say  in your summary.
• Include one direct quote from your source and cite the quote correctly in APA style.
• Create the APA-style full reference for your source and place it at the bottom of your paragraph.
• Check your paragraph for correct grammar, spelling, punctuation, and academic style.  

Week Two Peer Review Rubric

• The summary used an appropriate academic source (not Wikipedia or a fake news site) Y/N
• The assignment summarized the article in 5-6 sentences. Y/N
• The summary used a They Say/I Say template from Chapters 1-3. If no, please suggest one. Y/N
• The summary included a direct quote with an APA style in-text source citation. Y/N
• The summary included an APA style full reference for the source at the end of the paragraph. Y/N
• After reading the summary paragraph, I understand the main ideas of the source. Y/N
• The summary paragraph displays the conventions of academic writing, including style, grammar, and correct punctuation/spelling. Y/N

Please make sure that you include a final comment that your peer would rate as at least three stars for helpfulness here. Remember to like your peers’ feedback if you would rate it as three stars or higher.

Week Three Writing Task: Introduction (aka “Hook”)

How do you get your audience’s attention? The introductory paragraph is one of the most important parts of your essay. An effective hook catches the reader’s interest in a specific, concrete way. Look at the introductory paragraphs in the essay section of  They Say/I Say  for some examples of effective hooks.

• Outrageous statement or exaggeration:  In “Don’t Blame the Eater” (p. 241), David Zinczenko invites the audience to consider a headline suitable for a Jay Leno monologue.
• Question:  Zinczenko also uses a series of questions to get the reader’s attention. “Whatever happened to personal responsibility?” Richard Muller similarly uses the questioning technique in combination with a strong statement in “Nuclear Waste” (p. 252).
• Strong statement:  In “Hidden Intellectualism” (p. 244), Gerald Graff states, “Everyone knows some young person who is impressively ‘street smart’ but does poorly in school.”
• Anecdote:  In “The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream” (p. 260), Barbara Ehrenreich uses anecdote and vivid imagery to set the tone of her essay.
•  Vivid Imagery or unusual detail.  Flannery O’Connor starts off her short story “Everything that Rises Must Converge” (p. 272) with vivid imagery.

Other ways to start your essay include (with my examples):

• A quotation : In a 1965 sermon the day after nonviolent resisters faced police brutality in Selma, Alabama, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Deep down in our non-violent creed is the conviction there are some things so dear, some things so precious, some things so eternally true, that they’re worth dying for.”
• A   statistic or fact : According to the National Institute of Mental Health, one in five children under the age of 18 lives with a severe and debilitating mental disorder.

Choose at least one of these techniques to write a draft of your introductory paragraph(s) for Essay One.

• Remember that the purpose of your essay is exploratory and the tone should be objective, so some of these techniques may be more appropriate than others.
• Avoid the second person pronoun  you  in your draft (you may use first and third person pronouns).
• Your hook should end with a thesis statement that answers your research question. For an example, see Michaela Cullington’s essay , “Does Texting Affect Writing?” Her thesis statement comes at the end of paragraph three: “In fact, it seems likely that texting has no significant effect on student writing.”

Week Three Peer Review Rubric

• The introduction starts with a “hook” to catch the reader’s interest. Y/N
• The introduction avoids the second person pronoun “you.” Y/N
• The introduction is at least one paragraph in length. Y/N
• The introduction is specific and concrete. Y/N
• The introduction ends with a thesis statement that answers the research question. Y/N

This introduction makes me want to learn more about the topic.

• I cannot wait to read this essay!

This introduction uses the conventions of academic style, including good grammar, punctuation, spelling, and academic tone. Please provide a brief comment to explain your answer.

• Needs some work
• Solid style
• Wow! You’re an academic style pro!

Week Four Writing Task: Exploratory Research Paper Rough Draft

Writing task is due Sunday at 11:59 p.m. Reviews are due by Thursday before class. The final revised essay is due to Blackboard on the following Sunday at 11:59 p.m.

Note: The reviews for this assignment are not anonymous. You should have only two papers to review. I have also assigned a self-assessment for your essay, which means you will have the chance to check your own work against our class-created rubric.

Week Four Peer Review: Student-Created Rubric (Note: These differ by class)

• The essay contains an effective hook and introduction.
• The essay contains five or more sources.
• The sources used are credible.
• The paper uses APA citation style.
• In text citations are mostly correct (author, date).
• The entire essay supported the research question and answer (thesis statement).
• The essay meets the length requirements.
• The essay includes an introduction, thesis statement, and conclusion.
• The essay is objective in tone (free from bias). If no, please comment.
• The essay does not use the second person pronoun “you” (except in direct quotes).
• The paper uses They Say/I Say templates.

Evaluations

The essay taught me something new.

• I didn’t learn anything I didn’t already know
• I already knew something about this topic, but I learned something new
• I hadn’t heard anything about this topic, and I learned something new

Evaluate the essay’s grammar and punctuation

• Needs a lot of work
• Has some issues
• Mostly effective

Evaluate how informative the essay is.

• Gets persuasive or is slightly off topic
• I feel way more informed about this topic! Nice work!

The essay contains a good balance of sources and original ideas (They Say/I Say)

The paper is engaging and interesting

• I was interested but it could be better
• I was so intrigued by this paper, I reread it!

How likely are you to recommend this essay to a friend? Please explain your response.

• I could not recommend this essay to anyone
• I might recommend this essay to someone
• I would definitely recommend this essay to someone.

Appendix II: Peer Review Grading Rubric and Examples of Student Feedback

Possible Deductions for Each Week

• -5 submission score below 70%
• -5 reviewer score below 70%
• -5 for each missing review

Examples of Student Feedback

• I completely agree that many problems lurk on the internet. I also agree that parents should take the responsibility to protect their kids from harm of all kinds including those found on the internet. I like the idea of educating kids and holding them accountable with the contract.  Your Rating: One Star
• Have you thought about having the parents take turns volunteering between their classes? If enough parents participated and volunteered in the program you are suggesting, maybe they could cover most of the time slots and get a break on their fees. Also, CWI and other schools offer online and/or hybrid classes (like this one that we are in), which allow students more freedom in scheduling their school work. Maybe online classes could be part of the “plan of action” that you were talking about.  Your Rating: Three Stars
• I think everybody wants to fix this “very expensive health insurance” problem. All of us wish we could live a healthy life. I believe that without our health we can’t live happily. It would be so sad if we couldn’t see a doctor because we don’t have health insurance. What I hear you saying is that we need a universal healthcare system. Since the assignment asks us to first prove there’s a significant problem, I’m wondering which you plan to focus on? Will it be an insurance company or medical costs? It might be that both are connected, but if you focus on either one the problem of your argument will be more clear and strong. I would suggest finding evidence that convinces the reader how much the cost differences are between employer insurance and private insurance in Idaho. If you don’t have a job you don’t have insurance? You can’t get any healthcare at all? You might be able to get useful information on the website for The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare.  http://healthandwelfare.idaho.gov/Medical/tabid/61/Default.aspx Your Rating: Five Stars

Beyond “Good Job!”: How Online Peer Review Platforms Improved My Students’ Writing and Made My Life Easier Copyright © 2020 by Liza Long is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Advertisement

Supported by

With ‘Tommy’ Revival, Pete Townshend Is Talking to a New Generation

He’s also still working through his childhood trauma. Considering his musical’s legacy, he sees a story about how “we prevail ultimately, by turning toward the light.”

• Share full article

By Rob Tannenbaum

As he entered a suite at the Carlyle hotel in Manhattan, Pete Townshend mentioned that an afternoon meeting had been canceled. “So,” he added, “we have lots of time to talk.”

Townshend is one of rock’s great singers, songwriters and guitarists, and he’s also among music’s pre-eminent talkers. Since the Who first took the stage 60 years ago, he has considered interviews to be an adjunct to his music, a parallel way for him to clarify or interrogate the ideas he pours into songs.

In 1969, the Who released “Tommy,” a rock opera written mostly by Townshend, although the bassist John Entwistle contributed the songs “Cousin Kevin” and “Fiddle About,” and the drummer Keith Moon suggested the premise of “Tommy’s Holiday Camp.” Townshend expected the double album to fade quickly, in the way of most records. Instead, it took root in pop culture, and in short succession was adapted by a ballet group in Montreal, the Seattle Opera and the London Symphony Orchestra. Then, most memorably, it was a delirious 1975 film directed by Ken Russell .

The “Tommy” hoopla had faded before it was adapted for Broadway in 1993, with a book by Townshend and the show’s director, Des McAnuff. In a review in The New York Times, Frank Rich called it “stunning” and “the authentic rock musical that has eluded Broadway for two generations.” It ran for two years, and garnered Tony Awards for McAnuff’s direction and Townshend’s score.

Last year, the pair revived “Tommy” in a reimagined version at the Goodman Theater in Chicago, where it drew candescent reviews, and on March 28, it opens at the Nederlander Theater, with Ali Louis Bourzgui making his Broadway debut in the title role.

Townshend’s plot revolves around Tommy Walker, who witnesses a murder when he is 4 and, in response to the trauma, turns into the “deaf, dumb and blind kid” described in the show’s most famous song, “Pinball Wizard.” Sexual abuse, narcissism, cults and celebrity are contemplated — all topics that connect the show to today. If anything, it’s more pertinent now than it was in 1969.

“Pete created the blueprint for an extraordinary, universal story,” McAnuff said in a phone interview. “Tommy is an antihero who rejects existence as we know it, and you can’t go much further than that, in terms of being an antihero.

“There’s enormous sophistication in the music, even though Pete was only 23,” he added. “He even used repeating musical themes, which Lerner and Loewe and Stephen Sondheim also did.”

At our interview earlier this month, Townshend, now 78, was dressed smartly in layers of muted colors, with a pocket square tucked into his blazer. He settled into an armchair with a cup of Yorkshire Gold tea, and for more than 90 minutes was, by turns, hilarious and troubled, tender and profane, candid and coy.

“I’m a great believer in conversation as part of the artistic process,” he said. “I talked my way through 20 years of the Who’s career.” These are edited excerpts from the conversation.

When the Who released “Tommy” in 1969, the record — and you — were described as “sick.” Was that because the topics were taboo?

They reacted almost as though I’d picked that subject because it was controversial. I picked it because I wanted to explain the human condition with respect to its spiritual potential, which is that we’re deaf, dumb and blind to our spiritual side. It was a metaphor.

Bullying, sexual abuse — these were topics that prevailed in my peer group after the war. In London, there were still buildings that were smashed by German bombs. Adults were very damaged by the war, and the damage led to damaged children.

In your 2012 memoir, “Who I Am,” you wrote about being abused as a child. When you were writing “Tommy,” did you have personal experience in mind?

It was always fresh in my mind, but I was unaware it was a component of “Tommy.” In 1993, on Broadway, I was doing 20 interviews a week. In one, I suddenly said, “This is my life story.” That idea that “Tommy” is a memoir in which I work out my childhood stuff — it probably is and I should admit that. The abuse I suffered as a kid was at the hands of my grandmother, not my parents, though my parents were neglectful and careless.

My father was a professional musician, and my mother was a young, beautiful singer. She farmed me out to be breastfed by the wife of a trombone player in my dad’s band.

I was a sickly child, and she sent me to the countryside to live with her mother, Denny, who had been dumped by a rich lover, and was sexually bereft. There were creepy men around all the time, and when I started school, I was bullied. I was bullied by [the Who singer] Roger Daltrey, and what’s sick is that when he asked me to join his band, I did!

It’s a personal and generational story, but audiences continue to relate to it. Why?

I was shocked in 1993, and I don’t know if I’d say pleasantly shocked. The idea that “Tommy” was locked in the postwar period was of no consequence to audiences. They were looking at the meat and potatoes of family life, and the way even the best parents can [expletive] things up, without overquoting [the poet Philip] Larkin .

I don’t want it to feel as though I think “Tommy” needs to be treated only seriously. It has lightheartedness and joy. It has the idea that whether you’re an abused child or a healthy child, we prevail ultimately, by turning toward the light. That’s simplistic but it’s also powerful, particularly when set to music.

Has its relevance to audiences changed in 2024?

Young people seem to be convinced they can look into their phones and get an answer. But I don’t want to make presumptions about how audiences will perceive it. We’re at the Nederlander, where “Rent” ran for so long. I saw it and thought, This is going to be on for a week. Sometimes I don’t get the showbiz system.

Rock singing and Broadway singing are very different. How theatrical can the “Tommy” cast get without altering the tone of the music?

I leave it to the experts. The only reason “Tommy” was turned into a Broadway show is that I had a bike accident and smashed my wrist. The surgeon said, “You will never play the guitar again. And you will never masturbate again with your right hand.” (Laughs) I was learning to write and play piano with my left hand when I got a call asking me to meet Des McAnuff.

The tradition of Broadway singing is its ebullience, isn’t it?

Which is the opposite of rock singing.

Yeah, but the function of rock ’n’ roll is similar: You come, we’ll make a lot of noise, and we’ll all dance together over your troubles.

Is it true that you asked John Entwistle to write songs for Uncle Ernie and Cousin Kevin, two of Tommy’s abusers, because you didn’t think you could write so darkly?

I didn’t know if I could be flip enough. John was one of my earliest friends. He recognized in me a musician, which nobody else did. My father wouldn’t buy me a guitar. “Stick to drawing. You’ll never make a musician.”

John’s father had abandoned him, and his stepfather was a brute of a man. I sensed he had the capacity to write these two songs. I said to him, “I want sexual abuse in there, but try to keep it light.”

John knew about my grandmother, because my parents brought this awful woman to live with us when I was a teenager. One day, John and I were playing music and she said, “Turn off that awful sound.” I picked up the amplifier and threw it at her.

There have been only two new Who albums since 1983, and your last solo album was in 1993. Do you want to be doing more new music?

I do and I think I will. It feels to me like there’s one thing the Who can do, and that’s a final tour where we play every territory in the world and then crawl off to die. I don’t get much of a buzz from performing with the Who. If I’m really honest, I’ve been touring for the money. My idea of an ordinary lifestyle is pretty elevated.

I’ve been immensely creative and productive throughout that period, but I haven’t felt the need to put it out. And if I can make it personal, I don’t care whether you like it or not. When “White City” came out [in 1985] and the sales were so slow, I thought, Screw this. Nobody wanted me as I was — they wanted the old Pete.

AC/DC made 50 albums, but all their albums were the same. It wasn’t the way the Who worked. We were an ideas band.

Did the reaction to “White City,” a solo album, make you feel like not releasing new songs?

I’ve got about 500 titles I might release online, mostly unfinished stuff. We’re not making Coca-Cola, where every can has to taste the same. And it’s turned out, surprise, surprise, that rock ’n’ roll is really good at dealing with the difficulties of aging. Watching Keith Richards onstage, trying to do what he used to do — it’s disturbing, heart-rending, but also delightful.

When I was a kid, my dad’s band supported Sarah Vaughan for two weeks. To me, she was really old and not sexy. Time shifts; I’m now older than she was. In every rock documentary, there are bald men who look 100 years old, talking about doing loads of cocaine with David Bowie. What do young people think?

The Who isn’t Daltrey and Townshend onstage at 80, pretending to be young. It’s the four of us in 1964, when we were 18 or 19. If you want to see the Who myth, wait for the avatar show. It would be good!

Do you find comfort in being onstage with Roger?

A few years ago, Des and I spoke about doing a one-man show like Bruce Springsteen did. We went to dinner, and I had a panic attack just thinking about it: A lot of Who fans come every night and eventually they’d be repeating what you say to them, which happened to Bruce.

It’s different when you’re in a band. I used to watch Roger knock people out if he didn’t like what they said. It feels like a gang. We did a show for fans at Christmas one year, and I said, “You’re a bunch of [expletive].” And they all went, “ Yay, Pete! ” They like me to hate them.

To me, Tommy’s response to trauma is both masochistic and sadistic. He’s denying himself the pleasure of being in the world, and he’s also torturing his mother.

Well, that’s worth doing. When I wrote “Tommy,” I didn’t know about my mother’s errancy. Years later, I asked her to tell me why I went to live with my grandmother, and she did. Rather than hit her, which would have been appropriate, I felt gratitude, because I had answers at last.

You’ve said that “Tommy” celebrates “the value of suffering and the transformation of suffering into joy.” Do you envy Tommy?

Envy a creature I’ve created? I don’t think of Tommy as anything more than a coat hanger on which to hang a whole series of ideas. It’s a smart quote, though. Thanks for giving it back to me.

What is the legacy of “Tommy”?

It’s the idea that pop music can have a function beyond just getting through the day. I’ve lumbered myself, in a sense, with the responsibility to honor “Tommy,” which happened within the Who framework and grew out of the chaos of a rock ’n’ roll life.

Stephen Sondheim came to see “Tommy” on Broadway and said: “It’s good. I’m glad you’re having fun. Prepare yourself.”

I said, “What do you mean?” And he said, “It’s hell.” (Laughs)

Was he right?

Yeah, in a way. I had a musical called “Psychoderelict,” which I toured with in ’93, and it nearly killed me. I mean, literally. That year I also did a serious musical in London called “The Iron Man.” It was an utter disaster. So yeah, I understood what he meant.

The War Against Force Design 2030 Is Hurting the Marine Corps

S ince former Commandant General David Berger unveiled Force Design 2030 ( FD2030 ) just over four years ago, the Marine Corps has undergone immense change to prepare for a war in the Pacific against a peer competitor.  Force Design posits that at least a portion of the Marine Corps needs to be optimized to fight from small, distributed bases inside the First Island Chain. This has knock-on effects throughout the “man, train, and equip” responsibilities of the Corps. 

While certain communities within the service took umbrage at aspects of FD2030, the reaction of active-duty Marines appears largely positive. But one group of Marines has united in opposition to FD2030—a group of retired senior Marine leaders. This chorus of retired GOs has adopted the nom-de-plume, or perhaps, nom-de-guerre, “ Chowder II .” They have loudly and publicly denounced Force Design as gelding the Corps by de-emphasizing Marine Air Ground Task Forces (MAGTFs), the construct under which most of the Corps’ combat forces are organized. 

Chowder II counts several prominent general officers as members, including former Commandants Amos, Conway, and Krulak. While whatever private counsel they provided behind closed doors is purely their business as officers and gentlemen, the discord their public pronouncements have created is not.  

Disagreement is not the problem—in a perfect world, this dissent would be a part of the “campaign of learning ” within Force Design. Had this been constrained to debates at wonky DC think tanks or the pages of Marine Corps Gazette and Proceedings, this would just be professional discourse. But their public campaign has taken this past the point of respectful disagreement into the realm of undermining a commander. Regardless of the merits of Chowder II’s objections, the way in which these arguments are  being presented can only undermine good order and discipline and the long-term health of the Corps.  

Chowder II and its members have taken their campaign to the mass market press in venues such as Newsweek and The Hill . They post regularly on a Substack account called “ Marine Corps Compass Points ,” which presents a daily feed of essays condemning FD2030, often featuring unusual allegories relating combined arms to golf, eating at diners, and other activities designed to appeal to younger officers. They have appealed directly to Congress, achieving at least one win — the latest NDAA requires an independent review of FD2030 . What could have been a civil and professional debate is now a chaotic food fight detrimental to the image of the Marine Corps in the eyes of both the public and civilian leadership.

This public dissent is another example of the continuing breakdown of norms in American society in general and national leadership in particular. Despite insisting it holds higher standards of conduct and decorum than civilian society,  the Corps is starting to prove that it shares some of the same problems. The military as an institution has shown this degradation for a while. For example, we now routinely see open letters from various groups of senior officers taking positions in elections and partisan issues . Chowder II’s activism is another step towards the degradation of these norms, with dire consequences to the culture of the service that will degrade its effectiveness far more than any misfire in FD2030. 

The Corps as an institution has an obligation to take strong steps to re-establish standards of conduct amongst retired general officers. Debate over potential courses of action is healthy, but Marines of all ranks are supposed to know that once a leader has decided on a course of action, all hands are supposed to stop arguing and start executing the commander’s intent.

Chowder II’s ongoing campaign to undermine FD2030 has transformed its function from discussion to disruption. To understand the difference, look at the group’s namesake, Brute’s Chowder Society.

Different kinds of Chowder

Most discussions of chowder begin with “Manhattan or New England?” In this case, the original Chowder recipe was not cooked up to contradict the Commandant or other senior uniformed leader. Instead, it was a small cell led by then active duty Lieutenant Colonel “Brute” Krulak and acted on the behalf of Commandant General Vandegrift to support his vision of the Corps. This was needed because the Commandant’s faced fierce anti-Marine sentiment within both the Executive and Legislative Branches.

After World War II, the Marine Corps faced demotion to a small naval constabulary force and possibly dissolution. Brute’s Chowder Society provided the analysis, rhetoric, and behind-the-scenes lobbying that helped save the Corps through a legislative mandate in the National Security Act of 1947. 

Today, Chowder II members and devotees claim that distinguished mantle to, in their view, save the Corps by opposing the Commandant. They misappropriate Brute Krulak’s legacy, claiming that Force Design 2030, though endorsed by two Commandants, represents the death of the Marine Corps. Casting the Commandant as the enemy of his own Corps is the inverse, not the reincarnation, of the Chowder legacy.

The rhetorical battle

Are some of Chowder II’s criticisms valid? Almost certainly. The Marine Corps’ reversal of several of its FD2030 initiatives, such as dramatic cuts in V-22 and H-1 squadrons, is indicative of the willingness of current Marine Corps leadership to adjust plans as events dictate.

The current Commandant has no obligation to consult retired senior officers. He seeks the counsel of his predecessors out of decorum, tradition, or to simply get a different perspective, but he is in no way obligated to do so. He alone bears responsibility for everything his command does or fails to do. This was true when General Berger was handed the colors and is still true for General Smith. It was true when Generals Amos, Conway, and Krulak served as Commandant, as well as when Generals Zinni, Fulford, and Sheehan served as combatant commanders. None of them would have tolerated their predecessors taking public shots from the cheap seats.

There are venues for the Corps to get the input of its elder statesmen. The Corps has a “graybeard” system in which relevant experts, particularly general officers, are invited to symposiums and meetings to provide input and buy-in on service policies. This is often on a contract basis. As this same demographic often have consulting contracts and corporate board seats, conflicts of interest are very likely. Like politicians and PACs, perhaps their financial interests might just happen to align with their personal beliefs. That this presents the perception of conflicts of interest might be part of why their inputs weren’t solicited during the initial rollout of FD2030. That many of those loudly criticizing FD2030 also have interests in defense companies certainly casts doubt on their objectivity.

While many, though not all, of those involved in Chowder II are fairly wired into current events by virtue of their peer groups and defense consulting jobs, they also no longer have Combat Development and Integration Command working for them to provide expert study and analysis. The officers of Chowder II may see themselves as keepers of the flame in terms of Marine Corps traditions, but they have no more standing to criticize the current commandant than former commanders at any level. It is safe to say that if any of them caught a retired lieutenant colonel publicly criticizing his relief as a battalion commander, they would be outraged. 

It's their Corps now

Regardless of the level of distinction in terms of awards and rank we achieve in our Marine Corps careers, they all end in one of three ways--you quit, you get fired, or you die. All three entitle veterans to the exact same amount of input in current operations.

This calls for some degree of humility and trust. Marines, like the members of any institution, eventually turn over the watch to younger generations, trusting that they will do the right things, because they were trained properly. Trust in them should reflect the trust the older generation has in itself. That’s a major difference between an enduring institution and a normal group. 

Just as any unit has only one commander at a time, there is only one Commandant at a time. In this case, the Commandant’s scheme of maneuver has also been endorsed by the civilian DoD leadership under two administrations and by Congress over three budgets. Once a commander has issued his orders, the time for open debate is over, and the time for action has begun. 

Not one, but two Commandants have issued their marching orders. While professional debate sharpens the blade, Chowder II’s continued professional sabotage only serves to weaken the steel. There is still debate to be had over the direction of the Corps, but like any professional debate, it needs to take place within the norms of the profession. In this case, that means within the bounds of traditional military decorum and respect for serving commanders. Chowder II can either participate productively to improve Force Design, or it can continue to undermine the institution its members proudly served.

About the Author: Carl Forsling 

Carl Forsling is a retired Marine officer and V-22 pilot who regularly writes on national security and military issues. He works in the aerospace and defense industry and lives in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

This article has been syndicated to Microsoft through a republishing agreement. All search engines should point to this URL as it is the canonical URL .