I have never done a peer review before, but would speculate that a good peer review would be thorough while still offering constructive criticism. It would do a good job pointing out any blatant errors as well as grammar mistakes but wouldn’t tear down the person’s work. It is important in a peer review to offer examples of how to improve the piece of work rather than just point out what is wrong with it. It will present the corrections that need to be made concisely and clearly so there is no confusion for the writer.
A bad peer review wouldn’t put a lot of thought into the editing of it. It would point of blatant mistakes and may skim over other mistakes such as grammar or any logical fallacies. It would not offer areas of improvement and may make the writer feel incompetent or confused. If the corrections are not clear and concise, it may be more work for the author than it is a help.
No comments:
Post a Comment