Meredith's Blog

In class today, on Tuesday the 26th of November, we completed peer reviews for the drafts of our research papers. The ‘read aloud, think aloud’ concept as the method for peer reviewing has both its merits and demerits. The exercise is extremely effective in that it develops our critical thinking skills, which we can then use on our own papers in the future. The factor which makes it such a valuable activity is the academic nature of the discussion. With a third person involved in the more recent peer reviews, the element of direct critique is removed from the communication of ideas.  The suggestions for improvement are thus more willingly given, are more accurate and are also more well received by the writer. In the case of corrections of content, the mediator is able to indicate the improvements in a non-invasive manner and thus the better is more likely to be improved.

Peer reviews are also useful for encouraging academic dialogue between peers. The simple fact of completing the same assignment within the same parameters means suggestions about how to improve the work in question are more likely to occur, and be accurate. The evidence of a peer reviewed paper is cogent in the lack of implicit diction used, as well as the more limited lapses in grammar. A problem related to this aspect of peer reviewing is that there are common grammar mistakes which many students make. This means that even if a peer reviewer detects a problem within the text, they may not be able to provide a solution easily, or it may lead to more incorrect grammar.

Peer review is a positive method of analyzing work in terms of it being criticism ‘coming from a good place’ as Professor McNeill specified in the lecture on the 21st of November. However, some of the students in our peer review workshops had trouble with ‘read aloud think aloud’ initially, as it can be challenging to read, understand and speak out loud at the same time. Another major issue inherent in the peer review system is the limitation of time. Often completed in a university lecture or seminar time slot, it can be difficult to have conversation between the mediator and the peer reviewer without running out of time.

Peer reviewed sources are the ones which are the most trusted by scholars in their obtainment of research. This is due to the evaluation by scholars in the academic specialization which the paper pertains to before publication. Despite sharing the same basic concept, peer review of sources in the professional world differs greatly to the peer review which occurs in university lectures. Being older, having more work experience, and having more knowledge means those in the academic community who are peer reviewing sources are better than university students. The peer review concept is, however, very versatile and can apply to a multitude of faculties such as sciences and arts within the university setting, where it has been proven to also have success.