Viewing and Submitting Peer Review Assignments [ Types, Guidelines ]

A peer review is performed to make sure that one’s work is qualified with regards to the publishable standards set for writing. This peer review is often done when two or more people are asked to carefully and critically review their fellow student’s paper work, and give their own constructive feedback regarding his or her writing skills. These peer reviews are also used to improve one’s reading comprehension and writing skills as he or she reviews other people’s work. Further on this article, you will understand what are the common types of peer reviews, how these are done, and what are their advantages and disadvantages.

Types of Peer Reviews

Peer reviewing comes with different types of how these are conducted, and here are the different common types that are often used:

• Single Blind Review: This type of peer review is often done when the reviewer’s identity is hidden from the writer. This is the most common way of reviewing one’s work in which the reviewers can be honest when reviewing the writer’s work without being criticized for giving such feedback.

• Double Blind Review: This is when the identity of both reviewer and writer are unknown to each other. This is considered as the fairest way of reviewing one’s work due to the fact that both are safe from the criticisms. Though, it would be better if the writer is known for the reason that it will be easier for the reviewer to judge the work somehow by basing on the personality of the writer. Nevertheless, the writer’s identify is sometimes revealed, because their own way or style of writing is recognizable.

• Open Review: This is conducted when both the reviewer and the writer are aware of each other’s identity. This also means that the reviewers’ quality feedback regarding the writer’s work, whether these are negative or positive, are recognized by all. As a result of this, the reviewer tends to be uncomfortable to give an honest feedback knowing that everyone will identify that these are coming from them. Though, open reviews also motivate them to do a thorough review to avoid criticisms from other people.

• Collaborative Review: This is done when a group of people collaborate together to discuss their individual opinions and insights regarding one’s submitted work in order to be qualified for the standards in publishing an article. Though, having more reviewers could result to misunderstanding due to the reviewers’ misconceptions of each other’s ideas.

• Post publication review: This type of review is done even after the work is already published. This is considered as a given opportunity for the published materials to be edited and improved for a better output. Though, there is a possibility that the approach of the original version would not be compatible with the current one.

Understanding Peer Review Assignments

Peer review assignments are pertained to the task given by an instructor to his or her students to have their paper work peer reviewed by somebody else, which could be their fellow students. Upon reviewing one’s work, the student’s feedback or criticisms should be provided in order to improve their individual work. This must be done before their works are submitted to their instructor. In order to review one’s work, the reviewer must possess the following characteristics:

• Result oriented  – The reviewer should not be biased and not evasive in doing his or her part in formulating criticisms that will benefit both him or her and the writer.
• Morality –  Keep one’s work in confidentiality agreement, unless it is an open review in which publicity of results are authorized. Otherwise, the reviewer must hold responsibility for releasing such exclusive information.
• Objective – Follow the rules in making different criticisms of one’s work, instead of being influenced by own’s feelings or opinions. In short, the standards in writing must be strictly followed.
• Constructive – Provide criticisms that are relevant to the review and are useful. It should not be mere fault finding but improving one’s writing skills.
• Consistent – Performance reviews based on the findings or results should be accurate, concise and unambiguous. The feedback reviews should be straightforward, comprehensible, and direct to the point.
• Focused – Have the full knowledge and full attention of what he or she is doing and for what purpose.
• Factual – Everything should be based on actual facts.

These are just few of the most important characteristics or personalities that each reviewer should have in order to conduct a successful peer review.

Guidelines in Submitting Peer Reviews

In doing such review, both reviewers and writers should not be biased against one another, because these observational feedback (either negative or positive) are beneficial to each other. Though there are criticisms, each individual must accept and take these responsibly. Here are further guidelines before the submission of peer reviews:

• The criticisms should be based on the results of the peer review. Otherwise, it is unacceptable and unnecessary for the writer to put into action.
• In doing a peer review, there should be a step by step process or guide that is implemented in order to know what steps should be done first, and what should come last. Such steps involve the sequencing of when the different read-through of manuscript takes place.
• As mentioned earlier, both should not be prejudiced against the one another. Bad reviews or negative criticisms should be given if it is for the welfare of the writer or author.
• In order to avoid criticisms which are irrelevant to the writing standard reviews, there should be a criteria that is followed. This is also done in order to guide the peer reviewers on how they are to criticize the work and on what basis.
• Every one should be aware of how a peer review is done in order to have an effective one, and avoid misunderstandings or misconceptions of ideas.

Whenever you are asked to perform a peer review on someone else’s paper work or manuscripts, refer to these guidelines on how to effectively and constructively give someone a reliable review of his or her paper work.