Reviewing Peers -- What can we Learn?

For the Advocacy Project final draft by Joonhyuk Song, I read the entire paper after re-reading the rubric. John discussed corvids intelligence and adaptability in the wild, as well as their being poisoned. I found the paper interesting and engaging. As I read through the entire paper a second time, I made sure to make suggestions and to leave comments on the paper where I saw grammatical and spelling errors. I left about four to five docs suggestions, each with a comment beneath each suggestion detailing the reason for the suggestion. After finalizing the suggestions, I filled out the rubric accordingly, leaving comments after each rubric point.

Additionally, I reviewed Max Hardy’s initial draft of the Advocacy Project. He discussed the social intelligence of canines, and the implications of this information on the injustice that is the puppy mill. I found this paper a little less engaging than John’s but still informative nonetheless. I read through the entire paper once, and made a few comments where I deemed it necessary. For the most part, however, I used the rubric to explain my issues and highlights of the paper. After filling out the rubric accordingly, I made a few amendments, and sent it off to Max.

A piece of advice I gave Max Hardy on Structure and Flow

Back in week four or five, I remember receiving a piece of advice in my literature review from a student that I forgot the name of. He essentially suggested that I remove a bit of information in my sentence. Doing so would reduce the amount of clarity in the sentence, but would make the sentence flow slightly better. It made me think about the sentence a little more critically, but confused me initially because he just gave the suggestion and no explanation. While the advice eventually led me to the right conclusion, it still took a while to get there, which emphasizes the importance of clarity in communication.

There is great value in peer review in the hands of an adept reviewer and keen reviewee. Adept reviewers find the cracks in writing, helping them not only to identify it for the person who made the mistake, but also for the reviewer himself to analyze in his own work. Keen reviewees can sift through the large amount of advice given by advisors, and find the most crucial advice to follow through with first, while discarding the unhelpful advice. Practicing peer review techniques helped me grow in my adeptness as a reviewer, by learning from others’ mistakes, and keenness as a reviewee, by finding helpful advice.