Peer Review
Cognitive Psych/Memory & Language
To the Reader:
The best strategy for reviewing someone else's paper is to be an honest reader -- that is, observe your reactions as you read and jots notes in the margin:
This seems on track to me
This is a new idea I hadn't thought of
I don't understand where this is going
Oops -- I just realized I misunderstood the previous paragraph
How is this linked to the preceding and following paragraphs?
If this were omitted would the question still be answered?
Is there some additional information I need?
What will Yates think of this -- is it complete? on target?
Is this straight from the notes or class?
I'm confused
I see/don't see how these things fit together
I don't understand this
I don't understand how this answers the question
This doesn't make sense to me, I have no clue...
I'm feeling [fill in the blank] at this point
Note these are just gut reactions -- there is no "right" or "wrong" to them. You are not judging the writing, just letting the writer observe your cognitive processes while you read.
You are also not judging yourself -- you don't need to take on the burden of correcting the writing, you don't need to make suggestions, you don't need to worry that your comments are "inappropriate" or "wrong", or "don't make sense." They are just a moment by moment "stream of consciousness" that you let the writer in on. The writer will take your conscious processes as just that, nothing more.
You need not judge the writer -- avoid statements like "You should have...", "You didn't do this correctly", "You need to...", "This would have worked better if you...".
In general, focus on the writing, not the writer. To this end, avoid and rethink "you" statements. ("I" statements are fine, as illustrated by my suggested list of comments above).
So if all you do is let the writer into your head as you read the paper, good peer review is in a sense easy. On the other hand, most of us are in the bad habit of ignoring our gut reactions as irrelevant. As a student of cognitive psychology, it is a good idea to practice noticing your own fleeting conscious thoughts. I have incorporated that into the course in a variety of ways. Peer review is thus a central component of the course, not just something to get through.
On the other hand, good feedback is as specific as possible.
Good feedback focuses closely on the assignment. In what respects does the paper fulfill the assignment? What needs to be done next?
Good feedback focuses closely on specific ideas and paragraphs, or specific aspects of organization and audience.
Good feedback is HONEST about where you didn=t understand, where you disagree, where you think change is needed.
To the Writer:
Although having students exercise their powers of self-observation is one of the goals of peer review, the process is meant to improve your paper too! The conscious experiences of others can be valuable to you in deciding how to revise your paper. The goal of a writer is to evoke certain experiences in a reader, and knowing what readers are experiencing for this draft can help you target areas for revision and suggest strategies to try.
Not every experience readers have will be helpful or germane, nor related in a simple way to a needed revision (example: a reader says "I don't understand" in paragraph 4, but the problem can be corrected by revising paragraph 3, or paragraph 5, or even paragraph 1, perhaps by clarifying a single term!). But readers' overall comments should give you a better idea of
where you are achieving your communicative intention
where you are not achieving it
where you have left out information, or said too much
where you may have misunderstood the question
where the organization is not clear, and where it IS clear
where you have strayed from the question at hand
etc.
Don't expect to get "instructions" for revision from your reviewers. You will take their comments as nothing more than honest reactions, and evaluate the implications for revision later, in an environment that is calmer, quieter, more reflective than is possible during classroom peer review.