Peer Reviewing Rough Drafts

In business and the professions, writing is rarely a solitary task. Over the years, as a colleague, boss, or committee member you will be asked to help improve the writing of others.

Writing is a generally a production driven affair.  As you may have experienced when a speech or paper is due, communication needs to be generated at speed when needed. At the same time, whatever occasioned it, writing needs to be effective. The requirements of high quality communication is always much the same: a really solid sense of purpose, occasion and audience. And, the more work we do online, often quite distant from both audience and colleagues, the harder it can be to get a good sense of those things.

Writing and Revising.

Though we do not always realize it, good writing generally goes through the following process:

Explore, Focus, Draft, Revise, Edit, Conclude

Clear, effective writing motivates the audience to positive involvement. In professional writing, this can be banked in terms of money, time, and personal success.  Given how important this is, why is communication excellence not the norm? Obviously, production writing means that the work is standardized as much as possible.  Unfortunately, it also means that writing tics, clichés, and repetitiousness creeps in. 

In rough draft: proofread and revise carefully before sending the material for peer review. In effect, peer reviewers should be looking at your second draft.

I know what I mean! 
Writers do not see or hear their own writing as others do. In part, that's because we can think faster than we can write. So, everything doesn't always get on the page. And, we often forget to put everything in. Try, for example, explaining step by step how to brush your teeth, something you do every day. Now, ask someone to act it out, to brush his or her teeth while you read the directions out loud, adding not one single motion not in the instructions. It's very, very difficult to add every single instruction, and equally difficult to know what you can safely leave out. But, when you try it yourself, it seems to work perfectly.

Proofreading our own work is very much like that. We know quite well what we meant to say, and act on that rather then what is actually there. It does help to do two things:

• Read the piece out loud. Even better: ask someone else to read it aloud to you. You will have a better chance of noticing something than you would if you scanned it.
• Put some time between the writing and editing process. Go do something else; sleep on it. That will divorce you from the text a bit, so you may perceive of what you actually wrote rather than what you intended.
• Sleep on it. Then, read the text as though it belongs to someone else. You will find problems that you could not see the day before.
• Proofread carefully for mechanical errors. It is awfully hard to find your own errors, seeing as you do the text as you expect it to be. This is such a universal problem that I know some writers who resort to reading their material upside down and backwards. Even after you run spell check, proof again. The problem could actually be a word, just not the word you meant. Not sure of the mechanical rules? See
  • Mechanics, Grammar and Punctuation
  • Layout and design for shorter documents
  • Writing a paper for me

Having proofed and revised, you are now ready to participate in peer review.

Rules of Peer Review:

• Being Reviewed: Shhh. The owner of the work under review may not explain what was meant. Simply take note of what the reviewer tells you.  If you do not agree, you certainly do not have to use the suggestions. When the process is complete, the only comment should be, "Thank you."  You may be initially resistant to suggestions that are made, but realize after further thought that there is some truth/use to the observation. Remember, if someone misunderstands your communication, it doesn't necessarily mean that he or she is obtuse; it may mean that your communication is obscuring your intent. That is precisely what revision is for.
  
• Reviewing: (For examples, check the practice peer review site
  
  Correctness.

  As an author, you may have never been terribly sure of the rules. It really depends a great deal on the quality of the English teachers you had in middle school. But, at this point in your university career, it's time to make yourself pick up those rules. Failure to do so can mean that the work is not taken as seriously at it deserves. And, in English and other writing intensive courses, it of course can cost you dearly. If a professor takes off only 3 points per mechanical error, for example, the cost of the repetitions of a single comma problem can add up fast.

  The good news is that most people make fewer than 10 mechanical 'errors of choice'. They make the same ones over and over again. So, once those errors are pointed out to you, just keep a list of them, and the rules that pertain, on your desk. Always check for them right after you run spell check. You will be amazed at how quickly your work improves.
  
  Distribute or post the material without comment. It is especially important to resist the urge to offer disclaimers or explain the status of the paper. The paper must be allowed to speak for itself, regardless of whether it is a very rough draft or a nearly finished piece. You will, of course, want to have it in as complete a form as possible, as little can be done to improve a rough fragment of the eventual whole.

  As a reviewer, you are not the author's secretary, and are not responsible for making sure the document is technically correct. If a grammatical or mechanical mistake jumps out at you, or you perhaps notice that the author has used the wrong word, feel free to note that, but realize that it is not your primary job. Students in advanced writing, literature, and linguistics courses are presumed to know those basics.

Read each draft twice.

• Skim the piece quickly to get a general sense of what it is about. Then immediately write a one sentence summary of the piece at the bottom. That way, the writer can easily see if the focus is off track. If the reviewer doesn't respond as the writer intended in a first quick read through, the piece needs to be reworked. Make no comments.
• Praise. Reexamine the piece and select something positive to point out. This could be anything from a striking word or expression to a vivid image or a meaningful concept. Tell the writer about one strong feature of the paper.
• Describe all of your reactions to the paper, working through it a bit at a time. This can be most easily managed using the Comments tool in Word. Do not evaluate or suggest corrections at this point. Simply describe, as objectively as possible, the spontaneous reactions that you experience during the reading.
• Note: Now, give the piece another read through and comment upon any problems. Individual comments specific to a sentence or paragraph should be added as marginal comment lines within the text. (See the Jing Tutorial, Making Marginal Comments with Microsoft Word.)
  
  Remember that it is not the reviewer's task to rewrite the piece or fix things. You are not the second author. Jot down specific comments and questions about particular areas of the text in the margins.
  
  Provide feedback to the author, noting what you
  • really liked,
  • didn't understand,
  • would like to know more about or see expanded upon,
  • heard or inferred,
  • noticed,
  • wonder or are confused about
  • are concerned about, including areas that
  • seem to be out of place or repetitive,
  • feel should be left out or moved to a footnote or appendix.
    
• At the bottom of the page, go back to making general comments that speak to the paper's tone, focus, voice, and argument as a whole. These will be larger, more general issues you noticed on the second read through.
  

  One way to avoid the pitfalls of peer review is to use the "I heard, I noticed, I wondered" method. With these prompts, you can provide useful feedback to a writer without being too biting in your criticism. Most reviewers want to be nice, and they don't want to hurt the author's feelings. However, there's little more useless than a review that says little more than, "Gosh, I liked that, good job!" So, expand on these three statements:

  I heard...

  As a reviewer, first try to summarize what you think the piece was about. This is the easy part. Tell the writer what you saw as the story or the main idea. As a writer, listen to this section, and try to hear whether what is heard is what you were trying to communicate.

  I noticed...

  As a reviewer, tell the author about some of the things that attracted your attention. What worked well? What details seemed especially vivid or striking? What will you remember about this paper? As a writer, think about why the reviewer noticed these things, and how you can make all your writing as effective.

  I wondered...
  
  As a reviewer, did you have any questions when you finished reading? Did you not understand what something meant, or why it was included? Did something bother or disturb you? Did you suspect something might have worked better another way? This section is your chance to ask the writer all these questions. It's best to do so in writing, and to remember that the writer is in some way wedded to this document. She or he is trying to be objective, really, really trying. But it's hard, and the service you are performing is a huge kindness.

• Then, type in your name and return the document to the author on Blackboard.

Seven examples (6 bad, 1 good) of peer review:

1. I hated your work, and you are a bad person, lazy, stupid, etc.
   Here, the reviewer is being very harsh, speaking personally, and not offering any comments that will lead to productive changes.
2. I am wondering, why are you suddenly talking about banking, when there is not really anything leading up to it?   That isn't even part of the assignment.  It seems to be a big copy/paste from somebody else's site.  Please, let me know when you get your stuff together. You could have all the talent in the world, and no one will ever know if you do not do the work to show it.
   Phew! Who cranked him up? Certainly, the possible plagiarism is a serious and appropriate concern that should be noted. However, the reviewer derogates the author with the pretence of concern you see in really bad teachers and parents.
3. Your essay is OK, but mine is better.
   Can you see the trend? This is actually another variation of the first two. This person is making the review process competitive, and acting as an opponent, rather than a helper.
4. Nice paper. Good job!!!! Best, A Student.
   Those are nice things to say, but this isn't really a peer review. It's a lazy pretence of one.
5. I thought your writing was interesting.
   This writer is using a very popular word in peer review, but "interesting" doesn't really say much. The author in this case would not know what the reader found interesting or why it was interesting. Try to be specific in your comments.
6. I just love the way you write. Could you send me a picture of yourself? You're obviously a really sensitive, intelligent person. By the way, would you like to hook up for drinks some night? I'd love to get to know you better.
   Ick. This critic is more interested in the writer than in the work. The review would earn a zero pretty quickly.
7. This one is better: This was an interesting read. You paper flowed well and the tone was crisp and clear except in the first paragraph. Maybe you could go back over that one. You seemed to find your voice in paragraph two. 
   
   I have a couple things that might be helpful: I've highlighted what seems to be a run-on in paragraph three, but I don't think that's the larger problem in that area.  Maybe try rewriting that whole paragraph so it is easier to read. The highlighted sentence was a little confusing to me, perhaps clarify and expand a bit. 
   
   The source for your second parenthetical citation seemed missing in the Work Cited section.
   
   I wanted to know more about the way your boss handled the ethics problem. Also, do you have an example of one that's handled well, and perhaps something about just what the law is and/or the rule in your company? Could you expand a bit into those areas? I realized as I read that I really have no idea what the norm or the law is.
   
   Overall a great paper, See specific marginal comments within the text for more detail. I hope my suggestions help.  If not, just ignore. Best, Sarah Student.

Responding to Review

The proper response to your peer reviewer is a simple, "thank you." Never argue. Never try to explain yourself. "What I meant was," is an absolutely useless piece of information—except as evidence to yourself that you really do need to revise.

Writers so identify writing with self that it can sometimes be difficult to hear criticism as anything other than a personal attack.  That minimizes the chance for real improvement.  Peer Review can help here. Painful as it sometimes is, so can objective grading. If you get comments that bother you, stick them in your desk until you can calm down a bit. Then, sit down and read the them carefully. Give them some time to sink in, because you may find yourself becoming defensive of your 'baby' all over again. Usually by the following day, you will be able to get a better sense of exactly how the paper could have been improved or dealt with differently. That is awfully useful information.

One of the best authors I know papered the inside of his coat closet with rejection letters. He would tinker with the pieces to improve them and send them back out to another publisher. Eventually, the rejections became more rare. They never ceased entirely because, quite frankly, specific works weren't always what the publisher or reviewer had in mind at the moment they were received.

The same may occasionally happen to your papers. As a way around that, your work will be reviewed by different people and/or groups several times throughout the semester, so that you get used to working with people whose perspective is different. You may not always agree, but try to listen objectively as possible.

Getting to another level with your research and writing means you have to open yourself and your ideas to others with the knowledge that the feedback given is about your writing, not about you personally.

Electronic Peer Review and Revision
Using Blackboard's Discussion Board or Blogging Tool to do peer review.

(Note: The one that your course and section uses will depend on the dynamics of that particular course and semester. You will be clearly directed within your course's Blackboard units as to which one to use and what its deadlines are.)

Getting Started: Write your rough draft. Save it as a .rtf or .doc file. Important: Be careful to have no control characters (!, @, #, $, %, ^, &, *, +) in the in the file name or on the subject line when you submit it on Blackboard, either for peer review or to me for a grade.

Prepare to participate in peer review. Review the section on peer review and the mechanics of doing it online.

Jing Tutorials:

• Doing peer review
• Writing peer reviews using Microsoft Word.
• Peer review on Blackboard using Blogging
• Peer review using the Discussion Board.

[top]

__________

Notes

* You can use any number of word processing programs, but be careful to save the work in Rich Text Format (.rtf) or .doc file with no control characters in the file name. [back]

[top]

 

Dr. Bonnie Duncan
2003; Last revised June 15, 2007
bduncan@millersville.edu
1-717-871-2080
English Department
Millersville University
Millersville, PA 17551

Other Contacts:
Millersville Information Technology Help Desk:
1-717-871-2371, 1-800-509-9605

Blackboard Help Desk:
Help Desk # for B'board
1-866-334-9174