Reiterating a few ground rules

We’ve discussed these things earlier in the semester, but it’s worth reiterating them now:

  1. Critiques are of the writing, they are not of the writer.

    • It can be hard to detach yourself from your own writing. Similarly, it can be hard to critique the writing of a peer without feeling like you’re attacking them. These feelings are natural, and you should be aware of them while trying your best to move beyond them. It’s impossible to improve without being open to hearing about your weaknesses. Likewise, your peers will not improve if you ignore their weaknesses in the name of “kindness”.

  2. All critiques should be backed up with specific details.

    • Statements like: “I liked this” or “this is unclear” are not helpful to the author
    • Statements like: “I liked how you brought up the US Census data here” or “your central thesis isn’t clear from your opening paragraph” are significantly more helpful.

  3. Review and editing are different. The focal points of today’s review are described in the next section. You should direct most of your attention to these and not other areas of the paper like grammar, sentence structure, etc.

  4. As a recipient of peer review you should not feel obligated to follow all of your reviewer’s comments. There is no sole authority on what constitutes effective writing, and your peers are themselves learning how to become better writers. In many ways, the act of peer reviewing is as valuable, if not more valuable, than the feedback you receive. However, if multiple people are seeing similar issues with the same areas of your work you should consider making changes.

\(~\)

Focal points

For today’s peer review workshop I’d like you to devote the majority of your attention to three areas. These areas, along with a few guiding questions you might choose to consider, are given below:

  1. Central claim
    • Is it clear what the paper is about from the first paragraph?
    • Does the author make a clear central claim that is rooted in information from The Flaw of Averages or the related work(s) they are using?
    • How would you rephrase their central claim/topic in your own words?
  2. Clarity and conciseness
    • Do you understand the central claim or focal point of the author? Is it clearly explained in a way that others can easily understand it?
    • Do you understand the connection between the opening portions of the paper and the connection/related work that the author brought in?
    • Does the author make their points succinctly? Are there superfluous statements, unnecessary details, tangents, and/or irrelevant examples?
  3. Transitions and flow
    • Does the author smoothly transition from describing ideas in The Flaw of Averages to their own connection? If so, how?
    • Does the paper follow a consistent trajectory, or do you find it to backtrack and reiterate the same points?
    • Do you agree with the way the author structured their writing? Are there things you’d advise them to consider changing?

You are not required to prepare written answers to any or all questions, they are merely intended to guide you.

Additionally, you may point out other areas of improvement that you notice (such as missing/incorrect use of quotes or citations, spelling or grammatical errors, or poor sentence structure) but you should not devote much of your attention towards them.

\(~\)

Agenda

  • 15-minutes to read and prepare comments for each paper (approximately 30 minutes total)
    • Begin by reading the first paragraph and restating the central claim your own words (to the best of your ability)
    • Continue reading the remainder of the paper, focusing on 1-3 from the previous section
    • Record your comments in a document that you can easily share with the author
  • 10-minutes to discuss each paper (approximately 30 minutes total)
    • Start your discussion by sharing your restatement of the paper’s central claim
    • Be sure to devote time to each of the aforementioned items (1-3), using the given questions as possible starting points for the discussion
  • 10-minutes of reflection time
    • Prepare a brief paragraph (5-6 sentences) that synthesizes the feedback you received today and your next steps in revising your paper
    • Upload this paragraph onto P-web for credit
    • Upload a final version of your paper by 11:59pm on Friday 11/10.