Preparing for peer review

An important part of the writing process between drafting and finalizing the written work is getting feedback from peers. As explained in the Wiley website, “peer review is designed to assess the validity, quality and often the originality of articles for publication… what peer review does best is improve the quality of published papers by motivating authors to submit good quality work – and helping to improve that work through the peer review process.” Moreover, “… peer review continues to be regarded as a high priority requirement by the academic of most disciplines…” (Rowland 256) simply because it is a validation process of a written work that aims to improve its overall quality.

In preparation for our writing workshop, where we will review our classmates’ critical review of Fersten and Reda’s article, Helping the students meet the challenges of academic writing, I read the fifth chapter of Peter Elbow’s book, Writing with power, which is about providing feedback. Between the two types of feedback presented in the book, I chose to use the criterion-based feedback because it “… helps you isolate particularly troublesome aspects of your writing and then concentrate on them in revising and in future writing” (Elbow 243). I think that this type of feedback will be most helpful in our workshop because we can shape our assessment criteria based on our writing rubric. I plan to conduct peer review based on what Elbow has identified as the four qualities being reviewed in a criterion-based feedback (253-254) and interpret each standard to match the requirements under the writing rubric for MAIS 606.

1. Quality of the content

• Is the thesis clearly stated?
• Are persuasive arguments provided to support this position in the clearest way through evidence-supported statements?
• Have the main points been logically developed to make them clear and convincing?
• Does the conclusion sum up all the points that have been discussed in the paper?

2. Writing organization

• Is there a clear connection throughout the essay?
• Are all claims well-connected to the theme of the paper?
• Are the transitions from one sentence to another clear throughout the paper?

3. Effectiveness of the language

• Is there unnecessary jargon that may confuse the average reader?
• Does the paper maintain a mix of an informative and persuasive tone, which is apt for the intended audience?

4. Overall quality control?

• Are there mistakes in grammar, usage, and spelling?
• Are there any inconsistencies with the MLA format?

With this plan and preparation, I think I am ready to participate in our peer review workshop.

Works Cited

Elbow, Peter. Writing With Power : Techniques for Mastering the Writing Process. New York :Oxford University Press, 1998.

Rowland, Fytton. “The Peer‐Review Process.” Wiley Online Library, Loughborough University, 1 Oct. 2002, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1087/095315102760319206.

“What Is Peer Review?” Wiley, 2021, authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/what-is-peer-review/index.html.