Resources
Self and Peer Review
Resources
Self and Peer Review
CONTENTS
1.0 Overview
2.0 Self Review
2.1 Read Text Aloud
2.2 Use a Text-to-Speech Application
2.3 Read a Hard Copy of Your Work
2.4 Read Backwards
2.5 Take a Break and Return Later
3.0 Peer Review
3.1 Talk About Your Ideas with Others
3.2 Reserve Your Best Reviewers for Last
3.3 Ask a Peer Reviewer to Read Your Work Aloud to You
3.4 Consider Institutional Resources
1.0 OVERIVEW
An important technical communication skill is learning to review one's own work and to solicit useful feedback from others (i.e., self and peer review).
Peer review is not mandated for most student assignments in school. In most professional situations, however, peer review is not only required (e.g., for publication in major academic journals), it is also recognized as extremely valuable. As a skill, peer review includes both being a good peer reviewer of someone else's work and also knowing how to request and get the right people to review one's own work. Skillful peer review also includes knowing how to give appropriate credit for (i.e., how to cite) the feedback and suggestions that an author gets from others. Most often this is done with a footnote thanking the peer reviewers for their helpful suggestions with some statement also acknowledging that any remaining mistakes are the fault of the author(s). These footnotes sometime, depending on prevailing conventions and audience expectations, specify in more detail what the specific contributions were of various peer reviewers. For example, a footnote might read, "The author wishes to acknowledge helpful suggestions provided by John Doe at the University of ABC, from whom this author also adapted, with permission, the structure, format, and some wording for this report." Or, a footnote might read, "The author acknowledges important contributions from colleague Jane Doe who improved earlier drafts of this report with her suggestion, among others, to use a more parsimonious theoretical model." Less often, peer review is so significant that the initial author invites a contributing peer reviewer to be a co-author of the work.
2.0 SELF REVIEW
The review process should always start with a thorough and earnest self review (i.e., make sure that you've done as well as you can by yourself). There are many strategies for conducting a self evaluation of one's writing, but most strategies focus on ways to see and hear one's work with fresh eyes and ears. That simply means that you want to find ways for your brain to process the same information (i.e., what you have written) in different ways. Here are some specific suggestions for self review.
2.1 Read Text Aloud
One of the best and easiest approaches to self review is to read aloud what you have written. This is a challenge only because there are few other times when it makes sense to read something out loud to yourself. But, you should give it a try. When you do, be sure to pause every time you see a comma and pause a little longer when you see a semi-colon. Pause the longest when you reach the punctuation at the end of a sentence. If you pause and there is no comma, semi-colon, or ending punctuation, consider adding punctuation (usually a comma). If you have a comma and the pause does not seem needed or helpful, that is usually a good sign that you do not need the comma in that spot. If you have a hard time reading aloud what you have written, imagine that you are reading aloud to a niece, nephew, younger cousin, or friend.
2.2 Use a Text-to-Speech Application
Another option is to use a text-to-speech application. This approach uses the computer to convert your text to audio speech. The idea is that your brain will identify problems with your writing even when a computer reads your text. The computer speech will sound new and different enough that when you hear it you will find mistakes that you were not able to notice when you wrote the text or when you simply re-read it silently or aloud. It may be useful to read the text as the computer reads it. One simple app that works fairly well is called "SpeakIt!" (Chrome, Android, iOS). It works as a plug-in via the Chrome web browser. You simply highlight the text you want to have read and click a new button in the Chrome web browser. The settings allow you to pick different speakers and alter the speed of the speech. You can convert your Microsoft Word documents to Google docs to view them in a web browser. To view your text in a browser, cut-and-paste it into an email and then open the email in a web browser or you can convert your Word documents to a Google docs and view them in a browser that way.
2.3 Read a Hard Copy of Your Work
Another option is to print your work and read it as a hard copy. Your brain is likely to read text differently--and probably more critically too--if the text is printed versus merely appearing on a computer screen. A printed copy of your text also prepares you to share your text conveniently with peer reviewers. If you do not want to print your text, you might achieve some of the same effects by converting your text to PDF (i.e., it removes some word processing formatting) or read your text from the "print view" of your word processor.
2.4 Read Backwards
In some situations, you might identify overlooked spelling or punctuation errors by reading your text from the last sentence to the first sentence (i.e., backwards). If you print a hard copy of the text, it might be useful if you cover the preceding sentences and read only one at a time.
2.5 Take a Break and Return Later
One final idea, if possible, is to take periodic breaks when working on a writing assignment. Of course, this option is only possible if you begin your assignment early enough to take breaks. With breaks, your brain will have time to forget some of what you wrote earlier. Your brain will then read your text with less rote anticipation and more pure comprehension. In general, the longer break you take, the more useful this self review approach will be.
3.0 PEER REVIEW
Peer review is the best way to learn how to improve one's writing and speaking. Peer review is simply when other people review one's work and offer their critiques and suggestions for improvement. Thus, peer review depends on help from other people. Peer review is almost always a voluntary activity where the reviewer is uncompensated. That means peer reviewers have other, non-monetary interests (e.g., charity, public good, or altruism) that motivate them to review others' work. The challenge for authors is to balance their need for peer review without creating too great a burden for volunteer reviewers, without imposing on their kindness too much. It is this challenge that makes peer review an advanced technical communication skill.
When your work benefits in minor ways from peer review, it is customary to acknowledge these basic contributions. A footnote is one typical approach. A footnote, for example, might state, "The author wishes to thank Jane Doe and John Smith for their helpful suggestions on earlier drafts of this analysis." It is also customary for the author to claim responsibility for any remaining errors. For example, "However, any remaining errors are the sole responsibility of the author." If the peer reviewer makes substantive rather than mere editorial contributions, it is appropriate to name the specific substantive contributions. For example, "Some analytical techniques, organization, and wording for this analysis are adapted from suggestions provided by Roger Brown." Footnotes of this kind typically appear at the end of the first sentence or the first full paragraph of the manuscript. In the event that a colleague makes truly significant, rather than editorial or a minor substantive contribution (e.g., the colleague helps the author develop a new analytical approach), it is typically appropriate for the author to invite the colleague to be a co-author.
All peer review requests should start with a thorough self review. The surest way to discourage and annoy peer reviewers is for authors to conduct incomplete self reviews. Authors should do everything they possibly can to improve their own work before asking others to spend their valuable time offering feedback and assistance. Peer reviewers will assume that the work that you give them to review is your best work (i.e., the best work you can do). Even the best authors miss a typographical error occasionally during their self reviews. That is easily forgivable. However, texts that have many typographical errors or have other careless errors (e.g., formatting errors such as a missing paragraph) are inexcusable for peer review.
If you are still forming your ideas, then it is best to tell the peer reviewer that first. In such cases, you might not want to burden the peer reviewer with lengthy text. Instead, you might simply ask the peer reviewer if you can state verbally what you are thinking. The key is to be very respectful of the time peer reviewers give to our ideas. The best way to show your respect and appreciation is to demonstrate clearly that you have taken your own work seriously. Only then will your peer reviewers take your seriously too.
3.1 Talk About Your Ideas with Others
One of the best and easiest ways to benefit from peer review is simply to tell someone your ideas and ask for their feedback. The more times that others tell you what they hear your saying, the more you will refine and improve the organization of your work. Conversation is a very efficient way for peer reviewers to receive lots of information from you (i.e., it is much faster than reading). And, conversation is a very efficient way the peer reviewer to provide you with substantive feedback. As you tell others about your ideas, you will realize errors or weaknesses in your thinking. Take note of these instances. Careful peer reviewers/listeners will tell you when your definitions or logic are confusing. If not, you will know from the confused expressions on their faces. If you cannot keep someone's attention in a face-to-face conversation, you will struggle to do so in writing. If your thinking does not make sense to someone listening to you speak, it probably will make much less sense when written.
3.2 Reserve Your Best Reviewers for Last
You probably know people who give really great advice. These people really know the subject well. Often, those very same people are widely known for their good advice, and consequently they have lots of other people who seek their great advice. If you regularly go to these experts first or if you go to them especially often, these expert advisers will grow tired of responding to your questions, particularly since you could have probably gotten a sufficient answer from other people who are less busy. The key is to advice from your close friends most often and save your best advisers for those questions that no one else can answer. Only show your best work (i.e., work that has already benefited from your other, lesser sources of peer review) to your best reviewers.
3.3 Ask a Peer Reviewer to Read Your Work Aloud to You
You can learn a great deal about the flow of your ideas and the logic of your work by having someone read your work aloud to you. This is a great way to start the peer review process. You might ask a roommate, relative, or friend. As the person reads your work, listen for times when the reader stumbles or has to restart. These are areas where you might use alternative wording. This is an especially useful way to identify run-on-sentences. If the reader has to take a big breath in the middle of a sentence, that is a good sign that the sentence is too long.
3.4 Consider Institutional Resources
If available, be sure to take advantage of institutional resources such as the Writing Center at your university. These facilities are usually staffed with professional reviewers who can provide both general feedback (e.g., about organization and logic) as well as feedback about specific issues (e.g., grammar, punctuation, and transitions). Be aware that many of these professional peer reviewers will not review your entire document. Typically, they will begin by listening to your ideas. Take advantage of this relatively efficient exchange. Next, the reviewer will likely read one or two pages of your work. They will identify the kinds of issues that you might want to address and then suggest that you correct those issues throughout the rest of your work. A peer reviewer is not the same as an editor. An editor's job is to prepare written or other work for final publication. As such, editors read through an author's entire work and seek to improve all parts of the work equally. A peer reviewer, by contrast, seeks to provide representative feedback rather than exhaustive feedback.