{"id":55,"date":"2020-06-11T21:12:04","date_gmt":"2020-06-11T21:12:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/buildingblocks\/chapter\/peer-review\/"},"modified":"2020-06-11T21:12:04","modified_gmt":"2020-06-11T21:12:04","slug":"peer-review","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/buildingblocks\/chapter\/peer-review\/","title":{"raw":"7.2 Peer Review","rendered":"7.2 Peer Review"},"content":{"raw":"\nThe easiest way for others to read and review your work, as well as for you to do so yourself, is in print form. When revising, print the draft as you will the final version: single-sided and double-spaced, with regular size margins. This allows your reader, whether a classmate or your instructor, plenty of room to mark areas that might require revision. If you yourself would like to make marks as your reviewer speaks, provide yourself with a second printout identical to the first. You will get more and clearer feedback, however, if you simply write your reviewer\u2019s comments on lined notebook paper.\n\nTake down all of your reviewer\u2019s comments. Stifle the almost universal urge to explain or justify your work: \u201cOh, no, that\u2019s not right. See, what I meant by that was \u2026\u201d You will not be able to accompany your final draft to your instructor\u2019s office and comment while she reads it.\n\nRemember, your writing needs to speak for itself. <\/strong>\n\nIt is more valuable for you to learn from your reviewer what sentences or ideas caused confusion (so that you can fix them) than it is for him to understand what you actually meant. This is because, since you have read much more on the topic than you wrote, your brain naturally \u201cfills in the blanks\u201d where you left out vital information. You have no way of knowing where you need to add details, reword your work, or otherwise revise by reading over your work yourself. Your peer reviewer, however, probably hasn\u2019t researched the subject. He is a blank slate and thus the perfect person to point out any gaps in your writing.\n\nIf your reviewer makes a judgment without evidence (\u201cIt seems like this is really unclear\u201d), wait until the end, when your instructor may give you a chance to respond to comments. Then ask him for the evidence that led to his judgment (\u201cWhat parts of it seem unclear to you? How come?\u201d). You need specifics to revise accurately.\n\nNow it\u2019s your turn to read your peer\u2019s work. Read it over slowly, pausing at the end of each sentence, if not before. Offer a comment based on your experience as a reader. If you see no issues with the sentence, say so, and perhaps offer a summary (this lets him know he is on the right track). \u201c\u2018The Kamchatka Peninsula was closed to visitors until 1990.\u2019 Okay, well, I guess you\u2019re writing about how people from outside couldn\u2019t see this place for a long time. I\u2019m curious why.\u201d Give your peer time to jot down your comments, then move on to the next sentence.\n\nRemember, your job is not to edit or judge your peer\u2019s work. <\/strong>\n\nHe\u2019s the writer, so he gets to decide what to do with your feedback. There are often multiple ways to solve any writing problem. Pointing out that your classmate has split an infinitive only helps if he doesn\u2019t end up changing the sentence or taking it out altogether. Plus, he may not have the grammatical background to understand what you\u2019ve said. \u201c\u2018The people of Kamchatka have worked to tirelessly safeguard their heritage.\u2019 Hm. The word \u2018tirelessly\u2019 seems like it could come before \u2018to\u2019\u201d is a helpful comment anyone could understand.\n\nTake as much time as you can to review your peer\u2019s work. It should take you at least twenty minutes to get through a double-spaced page of printed text.\n\nOnce you have your reader\u2019s comments, it\u2019s time for you to edit your work. Take the feedback home and refer to it as you revise your work. You don\u2019t need to address every comment, but be clear on the ones you ignore (\u201cHe said he didn\u2019t get this sentence, but I actually think, because I revised the previous one to add more information, it should probably be clear now\u201d). Your instructor may ask you to report on your editing decisions or hand in your notes, so it\u2019s best to have an idea of why you made the editing choices you did.\n
\n

Review Questions<\/p>\n\n<\/header>\n

\n
    \n \t
  1. Exchange copies of each other\u2019s conclusions from Chapter 5.3 The Conclusion<\/a>. Take turns being the reader and the writer. When you are the reader, read each sentence of the conclusion out loud, pausing at the end of the sentence to give your writer a comment. When you are the writer, simply write down everything your reader says without saying a word.<\/li>\n \t
  2. Use your reviewer\u2019s comments to revise your conclusion. When you have finished writing, add a short report (two-thirds of a page) explaining what comments you did and didn\u2019t address and why.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","rendered":"

    The easiest way for others to read and review your work, as well as for you to do so yourself, is in print form. When revising, print the draft as you will the final version: single-sided and double-spaced, with regular size margins. This allows your reader, whether a classmate or your instructor, plenty of room to mark areas that might require revision. If you yourself would like to make marks as your reviewer speaks, provide yourself with a second printout identical to the first. You will get more and clearer feedback, however, if you simply write your reviewer\u2019s comments on lined notebook paper.<\/p>\n

    Take down all of your reviewer\u2019s comments. Stifle the almost universal urge to explain or justify your work: \u201cOh, no, that\u2019s not right. See, what I meant by that was \u2026\u201d You will not be able to accompany your final draft to your instructor\u2019s office and comment while she reads it.<\/p>\n

    Remember, your writing needs to speak for itself. <\/strong><\/p>\n

    It is more valuable for you to learn from your reviewer what sentences or ideas caused confusion (so that you can fix them) than it is for him to understand what you actually meant. This is because, since you have read much more on the topic than you wrote, your brain naturally \u201cfills in the blanks\u201d where you left out vital information. You have no way of knowing where you need to add details, reword your work, or otherwise revise by reading over your work yourself. Your peer reviewer, however, probably hasn\u2019t researched the subject. He is a blank slate and thus the perfect person to point out any gaps in your writing.<\/p>\n

    If your reviewer makes a judgment without evidence (\u201cIt seems like this is really unclear\u201d), wait until the end, when your instructor may give you a chance to respond to comments. Then ask him for the evidence that led to his judgment (\u201cWhat parts of it seem unclear to you? How come?\u201d). You need specifics to revise accurately.<\/p>\n

    Now it\u2019s your turn to read your peer\u2019s work. Read it over slowly, pausing at the end of each sentence, if not before. Offer a comment based on your experience as a reader. If you see no issues with the sentence, say so, and perhaps offer a summary (this lets him know he is on the right track). \u201c\u2018The Kamchatka Peninsula was closed to visitors until 1990.\u2019 Okay, well, I guess you\u2019re writing about how people from outside couldn\u2019t see this place for a long time. I\u2019m curious why.\u201d Give your peer time to jot down your comments, then move on to the next sentence.<\/p>\n

    Remember, your job is not to edit or judge your peer\u2019s work. <\/strong><\/p>\n

    He\u2019s the writer, so he gets to decide what to do with your feedback. There are often multiple ways to solve any writing problem. Pointing out that your classmate has split an infinitive only helps if he doesn\u2019t end up changing the sentence or taking it out altogether. Plus, he may not have the grammatical background to understand what you\u2019ve said. \u201c\u2018The people of Kamchatka have worked to tirelessly safeguard their heritage.\u2019 Hm. The word \u2018tirelessly\u2019 seems like it could come before \u2018to\u2019\u201d is a helpful comment anyone could understand.<\/p>\n

    Take as much time as you can to review your peer\u2019s work. It should take you at least twenty minutes to get through a double-spaced page of printed text.<\/p>\n

    Once you have your reader\u2019s comments, it\u2019s time for you to edit your work. Take the feedback home and refer to it as you revise your work. You don\u2019t need to address every comment, but be clear on the ones you ignore (\u201cHe said he didn\u2019t get this sentence, but I actually think, because I revised the previous one to add more information, it should probably be clear now\u201d). Your instructor may ask you to report on your editing decisions or hand in your notes, so it\u2019s best to have an idea of why you made the editing choices you did.<\/p>\n

    \n
    \n

    Review Questions<\/p>\n<\/header>\n

    \n
      \n
    1. Exchange copies of each other\u2019s conclusions from Chapter 5.3 The Conclusion<\/a>. Take turns being the reader and the writer. When you are the reader, read each sentence of the conclusion out loud, pausing at the end of the sentence to give your writer a comment. When you are the writer, simply write down everything your reader says without saying a word.<\/li>\n
    2. Use your reviewer\u2019s comments to revise your conclusion. When you have finished writing, add a short report (two-thirds of a page) explaining what comments you did and didn\u2019t address and why.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":90,"menu_order":2,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-55","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":53,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/buildingblocks\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/55","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/buildingblocks\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/buildingblocks\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/buildingblocks\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/90"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/buildingblocks\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/55\/revisions"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/buildingblocks\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/53"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/buildingblocks\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/55\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/buildingblocks\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/buildingblocks\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=55"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/buildingblocks\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=55"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/buildingblocks\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=55"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}