Introduction

Have you ever had a coach, friend, or relative show you a different way of doing or seeing something? Perhaps your golf swing needed some adjustment or someone pointed out an easter egg you missed in a movie. If significant enough, perhaps these suggestions not only improved your experience but changed the way you play golf or watch films.

When it comes to writing, however, providing and receiving advice can be challenging. But reviewing writing with a peer can help both appreciate the activity of writing so much more. In this section, we’re going to consider some ways to approach feedback as a way to engage our writing in more meaningful ways. This starts with changing our perspective about peer review itself and see it as a vital part of the entire writing process!

What Exactly is Peer Review?

Let’s start by unpacking what we mean by “peer review.” Broadly stated, this is a process in which work created by an individual or group is taken up by another for the purpose of verification, validation, and quality control. Peer review is how we ensure that our information is correct. In the sciences (see fig. 1), this process is used to verify research and findings and has been an important part of the scientific method for over 350 years!

Other fields have their own peer review standards. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), for example, requires its members to adhere to a particular type of peer review to maintain affiliation with the organization. This proprietary form of peer review is more focused on a firm’s operations and engagements but still uses standards to guide the reviewers’ suggestions (2022).

For professionals, peer review can ensure that our writing is mechanically sound but also that our information is correct. Consider that we each have a set of values, goals, experiences, and perspectives that can motivate and affect our work. Think about how your vocabulary and mastery of grammar and spelling has improved over time. You have also conducted research and incorporated your findings into projects. In addition, think about how your experience and education in your field has provided you with additional tools (such as terminology and methods) that also inform your writing. All of these qualities are reflected in your writing!

Now consider your peers. Each has a different set of values and skills as well as backgrounds and experiences. When it comes to research, they may have encountered different sources. Their experience and expertise can offer unique perspectives that could improve your work. In the peer review process, these two perspectives – yours and your peer’s – wrestle with the work being examined. We’re not just talking about better spelling but better ideas! A good peer reviewer will also help clarify your own expertise in areas where you might provide more explanation.

When Do We Conduct Peer Review?

As a writing student and instructor, my experience with peer review has been the traditional extra task tacked on after the writing assignment is complete. In school, this can be especially frustrating if we’d rather not think about the assignment after it’s been submitted. Now we have to review someone else’s work? Isn’t my instructor supposed to be doing this anyways?

I argue that peer review is an ongoing part of the writing process – not just an afterthought. One of the reasons for this is that peer review should be a conversation about the work. It should illuminate new ideas as well as offer guidance on writing clarity and effectiveness. This is not what typically happens in the writing classroom: I hand you my essay; you check the essay, make some suggestions and hand it back to me; I edit my essay according to your suggestions and submit it in time for the deadline. No conversation. No engagement.

This is a generalization I offer to present an alternative. What if, instead of an afterthought, we expanded peer review to make it more helpful?

• Peer review starts with the writer. In her list of peer review essentials, Suzan Last (2019) begins by pointing out that, to be of benefit, the writing must be of the highest quality the writer can muster. Too many minor spelling errors will become a distraction from “big picture” concerns like a lack of evidence or concepts that need to be expanded upon. More importantly, Last suggests that the writer discuss the work with the reviewer first. What are the concerns? What specific feedback is being requested? This is very important if the reviewer is unfamiliar with the subject matter.
• Review for ideas, not mechanics. One of the biggest misconceptions about peer review is that the reviewer must catch every minor mechanical error such as spelling and grammar. As mentioned above, the main goal of peer review is to get someone else’s unique perspective. While mechanics are important, focusing on concepts and ideas will be invaluable. That is, for the first round of review. For now, you want the reviewer to pose questions and expand ideas. We’ll talk about the review process a bit later.
• Expect several rounds of peer review. If the first review is focused on concepts and ideas, the writer being reviewed should anticipate having to expand and elaborate on ideas. This will entail more writing and perhaps more research so plan accordingly. Subsequent reviews will take less time (perhaps) but it’s important to build time into your writing process to accommodate extensive revision.

How to Give Good Peer Review

Your colleague or classmate has given you their writing for review. Now what?

If your colleague has sent you a digital version, save a copy to your computer and rename the file to something distinct. This will prevent your reviewed file, when returned to the writer, from overwriting the original copy. Your word processing software likely has tools for reviewing purposes. If it’s a printed copy, you will want to take notes directly on the copy but also have additional paper for writing out lengthier comments.

1. Prepare and Gather Information from the Writer. First, make sure you have the necessary information needed to adequately review the work. Who is the audience? What is the purpose? Are there any other details that are important to know while reviewing? Has the writer provided you with some specific areas to focus on? If not, be sure to ask! As the reviewer, you may also want to be sure you have the time to provide a proper review. The writer should also give you enough time.
2. Set aside time. As discussed, peer review should not be an afterthought and therefore given time to be conducted properly. For most academic journals, peer reviews can take months! When your colleague is able to take time to review, a reasonable amount of time to review a single page would be approximately 15 minutes – 10 minutes of reading and 5 or more writing comments. Of course, this time will vary depending on the subject matter, the reviewer, and the quality of the writing (remember to submit your best draft!)
3. Conducting the review. You’ve cleared your calendar for the next 15 minutes and have closed your browser (focus!) and so it’s time to conduct your review. Before you begin there are a few considerations you’ll want to keep in mind:
   1. Give the writing a focused first read. Try to withhold comments and suggestions during this first read. Get a sense of what the writer is attempting to accomplish. Is their purpose clear? Is the length appropriate to the type of writing? Is it easy to read?
   2. Take notes. Gather your thoughts so that you can share them with the writer in a clear and effective manner. What words come to mind when reading this work? What is the thesis or purpose of the writing?
   3. Pose questions instead of giving directions. Remember that peer review is a conversation. Linda Nilson (2003) argued that many of the questions we ask writers are not as helpful as they could be (p. 35). Instead, she says, our questions should not ask for judgments nor opinions but instead focus on conceptual, yet specific, details (p. 36). For instance, compare the two questions:
      1. “Does the essay prove it’s point? If not, why not?”
         vs.
      2. “What are the writer’s justifications for taking the positions that he or she does?”

Note the tone and level of specificity asked. The first question is vague and a bit blunt sounding. The second question is more targeted, asking for specific details. There’s also a lack of interpretation being asked of the reviewer.

1. Describe, evaluate, and suggest. Bill Hart-Davidson (2014) offers a simple, three-step model for conducting peer review. First, the reviewer should offer a description of what they are reading. This perspective of the reviewer may help the writer determine whether or not their intended meaning is being effectively communicated. Then, he suggests, the reviewer should evaluate the writing against the criteria. If the writer, for instance, is concerned about the quality of their evidence, the reviewer can offer some objective standards like citation practices. Once the reviewer has evaluated the writing, then they may offer suggestions on how to improve the work.
2. Use a simple rubric to evaluate writing. A rubric can help the reviewer keep track of various qualities of the writing. A rubric is a checklist or set of categories and concepts that are most important. You have probably seen rubrics used in the assessment of your work. Keeping your rubric simple keep it manageable. See the example at the end of this section.
3. Don’t edit. As Suzan Last recommends, “your job is reviewer, not editor.” The reviewer’s responsibility is to identify areas of improvement not make the corrections. Making changes for the writer may seem helpful but it is preventing the writer from making the change which will help improve their writing!
4. Two kinds of comments. In addition to comments and suggestions made in the margins or within the text, you should also provide a lengthier comment that offers “big picture” suggestions. This would include your first impressions, positive moments, as well as areas where you’ve focused your suggestions.
5. Identify specific areas when making suggestions. When making comments, be sure those comments are addressing specific areas of concern. For example, if a writer consistently misspells “accommodate” (as I tend to do), you would highlight one instance and recommend they current each instance.
6. Use a constructive and positive voice when writing feedback. The reviewer is there to help the writer. If you approach your review with a supportive attitude, your comments will reflect the conversational quality of peer review. Your tone should also be courteous. Remember that we all have writing wrinkles that need to be ironed out – offer feedback in the voice you would like used when it’s your time to be reviewed!

Conclusion: Peer Review as Professionalism

The peer review process is central to many occupations and the development of a productive workplace. By comparison, providing feedback about a colleague’s writing is far less complex than the peer review processes found in most fields: accountants have stringent protocols as do nurses and scientists, as well as creative professionals.

Ultimately, we want our peer review process to highlight the collaboration and congeniality of the professional environment. The conversation that emerges will not only help the writer develop their writing but also inform the reviewer’s writing through the encounter with a different perspective. In this way, the peer review process is a way of getting to know your colleagues, facilitate comradery and build trust.

The collaborative nature of peer review not only helps reinforce the relationships with colleagues but also with clients; peer review is excellent practice for working with clients and can help develop us recognize a client’s needs when they might not have the ability to effectively communicate those needs. With practice, even the most challenging of clients may be offered suggestions that can help mitigate their vision with what is feasible.

Rubric Example

Rubrics can be as complex or as simple as you like but they should be helpful is structuring your evaluation. One example is the following based on two categories, mechanics and genre as well as two qualities, form and content.

• Content refers to the more nuanced quality of our writing, this is what we are trying to say
• Form refers to the structure and design of your writing; this is how we are saying it
• Writing mechanics are the rules that help support the effective communication of our message
• The genre is the category of writing used to deliver that message

This creates a rubric that looks like the one below. Some of the items that would fall under each quadrant are also included. You should add others based on your expertise, experience and the requests of the reviewer.

Works Cited

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (2022) “Questions and answers about the AICPA peer review program.” https://us.aicpa.org/content/dam/aicpa/interestareas/peerreview/
resources/faqs/downloadabledocuments/qandaprp-general-info.pdf

Eli Review. (2014, December 19). Describe-evaluate-suggest: Giving helpful feedback, with Bill Hart-Davidson [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzdBRRQhYv4

Last, S. (2019). Technical Writing Essentials. Press Books. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Nilson, L. B. (2003). Improving student peer feedback. College Teaching, 51(1), 34-38. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27559125.pdf

“What is peer review?” Elsevier. n.d. Retrieved from: https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/what-is-peer-review