Peer Review Process

Peer responses improve the readers' and the writers' approach to writing. Even if you feel that someone else's writing isn't as developed as your own, by working with him or her you are strengthening your ability to articulate your observations. You need to go beyond saying, "This doesn't sound right." You need to explain.

As a writer, you know that sharing your work with others can be as threatening as it is thrilling. The search for response always involves risk. Please remember this vulnerability when you respond to someone else's work: you are not Error Hunter, but you are Respectful Reader. Be honest and diplomatic. Keep the emphasis on the work and be as specific as possible when you are praising and when you are criticizing, too. But you should be critical. Consider responding to the following

  1. Does the writer have a stated thesis? What is it?
  2. Does the writer do a good job of supporting his or her position? Is everything he or she says accurate? What does the writer do to support his or her position? (Give reasons? Give examples? Rely on authority?)
  3. What are some possible objections to the writer's position?
  4. Local Focus. Review each paragraph. Does each paragraph focus on only one idea, or do some paragraphs focus on several ideas?
  5. Comment on the paper's style by starting with sentence variety. Consider, for example, if all of the sentences begin with the subject, or do some of the sentences begin with phrases or clauses that don't contain the subject?
  6. What do you think are this writer's strengths? Be as specific as possible, please.
  7. How can this writer produce a better paper?
  8. Remember there is a grading rubric posted. Grading Rubric

From Purdue University is a helpful proofreading  checklist.

What to include in your critique
  • Praise what works well in the draft; point to specific passages.
  • Comment on large issues first (Does the draft respond to the assignment? Are important and interesting ideas presented? Is the main point clear and interesting? Is there a clear focus? Is the draft effectively organized? Is the sequence of points logical? Are ideas adequately developed? If appropriate, is the draft convincing in its argument? Is evidence used properly?). Go on to smaller issues later (awkward or confusing sentences, style, grammar, word choice, proofreading).
  • Time is limited (for your response and for the author's revision), so concentrate on the most important ways the draft could be improved.
  • Comment on whether the introduction clearly announces the topic and suggests the approach that will be taken; on whether ideas are clear and understandable.
  • Be specific in your response (explain where you get stuck, what you don't understand) and in your suggestions for revision. And as much as you can, explain why you're making particular suggestions.
  • Try describing what you see in the paper--what you see as the main point, what you see as the organizational pattern.
  • Identify what's missing, what needs to be explained more fully. Also identify what can be cut.
How to criticize appropriately
  • Be honest (but polite and constructive) in your response
  • Don't argue with the author or with other respondents.

(Source: University of Wisconsin-Madison Writing Center)