Reiterating a few ground rules
We’ve discussed these things earlier in the semester, but it’s worth
reiterating them now:
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”.
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.
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.
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:
- 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?
- 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?
- 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.