- 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
- Supporting Your Students
- Strategies And Procedures
- Open Educational Resources
- Assignment: Writing Center Session Reflection
- 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
- Diverse & Inclusive Excellence
- Sustainability
- Accessibility
470-KSU-INFO (470-578-4636)
© 2023 Kennesaw State University. All Rights Reserved.
- Privacy Statement
- Accreditation
- Reporting Hotline
- Open Records
- Human Trafficking Notice
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 November 25, 2022.
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, 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.
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.
What can proofreading do for your paper?
Scribbr editors not only correct grammar and spelling mistakes, but also strengthen your writing by making sure your paper is free of vague language, redundant words, and awkward phrasing.
See editing example
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
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.
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. (2022, November 25). What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved February 27, 2023, 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, what is your plagiarism score.
Introduction
Background on the Course
CO300 as a University Core Course
Short Description of the Course
Course Objectives
General Overview
Alternative Approaches and Assignments
(Possible) Differences between COCC150 and CO300
What CO300 Students Are Like
And You Thought...
Beginning with Critical Reading
Opportunities for Innovation
Portfolio Grading as an Option
Teaching in the computer classroom
Finally. . .
Classroom materials
Audience awareness and rhetorical contexts
Critical thinking and reading
Focusing and narrowing topics
Mid-course, group, and supplemental evaluations
More detailed explanation of Rogerian argument and Toulmin analysis
Policy statements and syllabi
Portfolio explanations, checklists, and postscripts
Presenting evidence and organizing arguments/counter-arguments
Research and documentation
Writing assignment sheets
Assignments for portfolio 1
Assignments for portfolio 2
Assignments for portfolio 3
Workshopping and workshop sheets
On workshopping generally
Workshop sheets for portfolio 1
Workshop sheets for portfolio 2
Workshop sheets for portfolio 3
Workshop sheets for general purposes
Sample materials grouped by instructor
Peer-Review Checklist for Draft of Argument Essay
Read the essay through, quickly. Then read it again, with the following questions in mind. Please write extensive comments either on your workshop partner's draft where applicable or on this handout. If you need more room, continue writing on the back of this page.
- Does this draft respond to the assignment? (Argument of a debatable issue with Rogerian slant?)
- Looking at the essay as whole, what thesis (main point including writer's opinion) is advanced? Please underline the thesis on your workshop partner's draft. If it is implied only, jot down what you perceive to be the thesis here.
- Are the needs of the audience kept in mind? For instance, do some concepts or words need to be defined? Is the evidence (examples, testimony of authorities, personal observations) clear and effective? Get into the margins of the draft and comment.
- Is any obvious evidence (or counter-evidence) overlooked?
- Can you accept the writer's assumptions? If not, why not? Please be honest and specific.
- Looking at each paragraph separately:
- What is the basic point?
- How does each paragraph relate to the essay's main idea or the previous paragraph?
- Should some paragraphs be deleted? Be divided into two or more paragraphs? Be combined? Be put elsewhere? (If you outline the essay by jolting down the gist of each paragraph, you will get help in answering these questions.)
- Is each sentence clearly related to the sentence that precedes it and to the sentence that follows?
- Is each paragraph adequately developed? Are there sufficient details, perhaps brief quotations or paraphrases from credible sources?
- Are the introductory and concluding paragraphs effective?
- What are the paper's main strengths?
- Make at least one specific suggestion that you think will assist the author to improve the paper.
- Last but not least--mechanics. If time permits, point out errors in spelling or grammar that distract from the argument of this draft.
English Current
ESL Lesson Plans, Tests, & Ideas
- North American Idioms
- Business Idioms
- Idioms Quiz
- Idiom Requests
- Proverbs Quiz & List
- Phrasal Verbs Quiz
- Basic Phrasal Verbs
- North American Idioms App
- A(n)/The: Help Understanding Articles
- The First & Second Conditional
- The Difference between 'So' & 'Too'
- The Difference between 'a few/few/a little/little'
- The Difference between "Other" & "Another"
- Check Your Level
- English Vocabulary
- Verb Tenses (Intermediate)
- Articles (A, An, The) Exercises
- Prepositions Exercises
- Irregular Verb Exercises
- Gerunds & Infinitives Exercises
- Discussion Questions
- Speech Topics
- Argumentative Essay Topics
- Top-rated Lessons
- Intermediate
- Upper-Intermediate
- Reading Lessons
- View Topic List
- Expressions for Everyday Situations
- Travel Agency Activity
- Present Progressive with Mr. Bean
- Work-related Idioms
- Adjectives to Describe Employees
- Writing for Tone, Tact, and Diplomacy
- Speaking Tactfully
- Advice on Monetizing an ESL Website
- Teaching your First Conversation Class
- How to Teach English Conversation
- Teaching Different Levels
- Teaching Grammar in Conversation Class
- Member Log-in/Home
- North American Proverbs Quiz & List
- North American Idioms Quiz
- Idioms App (Android)
- 'Be used to'" / 'Use to' / 'Get used to'
- Ergative Verbs and the Passive Voice
- Keywords & Verb Tense Exercises
- Irregular Verb List & Exercises
- Non-Progressive (State) Verbs
- Present Perfect vs. Past Simple
- Present Simple vs. Present Progressive
- Past Perfect vs. Past Simple
- Subject Verb Agreement
- The Passive Voice
- Subject & Object Relative Pronouns
- Relative Pronouns Where/When/Whose
- Commas in Adjective Clauses
- A/An and Word Sounds
- 'The' with Names of Places
- Understanding English Articles
- Article Exercises (All Levels)
- Yes/No Questions
- Wh-Questions
- How far vs. How long
- Affect vs. Effect
- A few vs. few / a little vs. little
- Boring vs. Bored
- Compliment vs. Complement
- Die vs. Dead vs. Death
- Expect vs. Suspect
- Experiences vs. Experience
- Go home vs. Go to home
- Had better vs. have to/must
- Have to vs. Have got to
- I.e. vs. E.g.
- In accordance with vs. According to
- Lay vs. Lie
- Make vs. Do
- In the meantime vs. Meanwhile
- Need vs. Require
- Notice vs. Note
- 'Other' vs 'Another'
- Pain vs. Painful vs. In Pain
- Raise vs. Rise
- So vs. Such
- So vs. So that
- Some vs. Some of / Most vs. Most of
- Sometimes vs. Sometime
- Too vs. Either vs. Neither
- Weary vs. Wary
- Who vs. Whom
- While vs. During
- While vs. When
- Wish vs. Hope
- 10 Common Writing Mistakes
- 34 Common English Mistakes
- First & Second Conditionals
- Comparative & Superlative Adjectives
- Determiners: This/That/These/Those
- Check Your English Level
- Grammar Quiz (Advanced)
- Vocabulary Test - Multiple Questions
- Vocabulary Quiz - Choose the Word
- Verb Tense Review (Intermediate)
- Verb Tense Exercises (All Levels)
- Conjunction Exercises
- List of Topics
- Business English
- Games for the ESL Classroom
- Pronunciation
- Teaching Your First Conversation Class
- How to Teach English Conversation Class
Argumentative Essay Peer-Editing Checklist
I use the below checklist with my students so they can improve the drafts of their argumentative essays . Feel free to use it (or edit it as long as you don't redistribute it) if you find it useful for your class. Note that there are APA-related questions.
There are two pages. The first page is for the prepared students who brought an essay draft to class to show their partners. The second page is for unprepared students who only have their essay in their heads (it's a verbal exercise). If your students are all prepared, then you can disregard the second page.
Peer-review Checklist Preview
Argumentative Essay Draft Peer-Editing Checklist
Pair-work : Answer the below questions based on your partner’s essay.
- The essay has a clear thesis statement presenting its stance at the end of the introduction paragraph. (YES/NO) If YES, write the essay’s thesis statement below:
- The essay presents a counter-argument to the author’s stance. (YES/NO) If YES, write the counter-argument points below:
- Can you easily find a refutation or response to each of the above points?
Point A: (YES/NO)
Point B: (YES/NO)
(Point C: (YES/NO))
- If YES, is the refutation persuasive? (YES/Somewhat/No)
- Does the essay ignore any obvious counter-arguments? (YES/NO) (Answer should be NO)
- Do the regular body paragraphs begin with a clear topic sentence that states the overall topic of the paragraph? (Example topic sentence: “ Furthermore, outsourcing can reduce company costs .” < If this were the topic sentence, then the whole paragraph would be about reducing costs.) (YES/NO)
- Does each paragraph have at least three sentences? (YES/NO)
If time allows…
- Does each in-text citation contain the author’s last name and the year of publication? (YES/NO)
- Count the number of authors cited. Do all of these authors appear in the References? (YES/NO)
- Are there any non-cited authors in the References? (YES/NO) (Answer should be NO)
- Are the References entries listed in alphabetical order?
- Do all sources accessed online have a DOI or URL?
- Are the sentences clear? Highlight the sentences you don’t understand.
Research Essay Worksheet – Verbal Explanation (Essay draft not Ready)
Part 1 (Pair Work) : Stance, Counter-argument, and Refutation
Present the below points to your partner about your essay. You do not need to write anything–explain it as clearly as possible verbally.
Stance/Thesis
- My essay argues that ….
Counter-argument
- Critics of this view argue that (1) ….
- Some people also might argue that (2) ….
Refutation/Response
- Point #1 is not (completely) true because ….
- Point #2 is not (completely) true because ….
Part 2 : Once finished, give feedback to each other. Consider the following points:
- Are the most obvious counter-arguments mentioned?
- Does the refutation address the specific points of the counter-argument?
- Is the refutation convincing
Part 3 : (Time Permitting) Verification of peer-reviewed sources
Paste a minimum of three peer-reviewed sources that you plan to use below.
Confirm with your partner that these sources are peer-reviewed, i.e. journal articles or published books.
Best of luck with your classes.
-- Peer-editing worksheet created by Matthew Barton (copyright) for Englishcurrent.com
If you found this page helpful, consider a donation to our hosting bill to show your support!
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
- University of Pennsylvania
- School of Arts and Sciences
- Penn Calendar
Search form
Questions for Peer Review
Katherine milligan.
1. (Argument) Summarize the main idea of the draft briefly in your own words.
2. (Argument, Organization) Does the opening establish a clear starting point for the paper (a thesis, or at least a focussed topic)? Would some other part of the draft make a better introduction?
3. (Argument) Does the paper conclude with a whimper or a shout? Is the conclusion merely repetitive, or does it synthesize ideas, suggest new directions of thought, re-evaluate the introductory statements?
4. (Argument) Has any significant aspect of the question been neglected?
5. (Argument) Is there any point where the paper tends to fall from the level of analysis to the level of observation?
6. (Organization) How does the draft hold together? Which paragraphs don't connect well with preceding or subsequent ones?
7. (Organization, Evidence) Are there paragraphs that seem less coherent or less convincing than others? If so, choose one and explain how it might be clarified and/or better supported.
8. (Evidence) Select the best phrases, paragraphs, and/or ideas in the paper. Can they be exploited more thoroughly? How?
9. (Mechanics) Note problems with sentence structure, grammar, word choice, and other mechanical issues.
10. Respond to any questions the writer poses about her/his own draft.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
In short, this pattern of commenting encourages reviewers to 1. describe what they are reading and understanding from the text, 2. evaluate how well the text is working based on the rubric, assignment sheet, or class material, and 3. suggest next steps for improvement.
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.
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. Criticisms of peer review
Peer-Review Checklist for Draft of Argument Essay Read the essay through, quickly. Then read it again, with the following questions in mind. Please write extensive comments either on your workshop partner's draft where applicable or on this handout. If you need more room, continue writing on the back of this page.
Argumentative Essay Draft Peer-Editing Checklist Pair-work: Answer the below questions based on your partner’s essay. The essay has a clear thesis statement presenting its stance at the end of the introduction paragraph. (YES/NO) If YES, write the essay’s thesis statement below: The essay presents a counter-argument to the author’s stance.
What are the main conclusions? Clarity/Style: Did you find distracting grammar, punctuation, spelling, or word usage problems? Circle them and identify any patterns or themes you detect. Is the tone of the essay formal? If you find awkward sentences, try to explain why they don’t make sense to you.
Argumentative Essay Review Part 2: Reflection TO BE COMPLETED BY WRITER AND TURNED IN WITH ESSAY Writer’s Name _____ 1. After reading over your peer reviewer’s comments, write about the ones you find helpful: _____
1. (Argument) Summarize the main idea of the draft briefly in your own words. 2. (Argument, Organization) Does the opening establish a clear starting point for the paper (a thesis, or at least a focussed topic)? Would some other part of the draft make a better introduction? 3. (Argument) Does the paper conclude with a whimper or a shout?