Uncategorized

how to peer review an essay

how to peer review an essay

12) Give your recommendation to the editor.
Publons allows you to record, verify, and showcase your peer review contributions in a format you can include in job and funding applications (without breaking reviewer anonymity).

Most people need instruction and practice in both giving and making use of constructive feedback. You can help your students.

  • Calibrated Peer Review – a more detailed introduction to Calibrated Peer Review, with an example and references.

How to peer review an essay
2. Teach peer review as an essential part of the writing process. Emphasize to students that peer review is not just a course requirement: it is an essential part of the writing process that all successful writers engage in at some point. Your students may not realize the extent to which scholars and other professionals practice peer review as an integral part of producing effective writing in their fields. Consider explaining why, as a scholar, you find peer review helpful-even when you do not agree with or appreciate every comment made by a peer- reviewer. For example, you might tell them about a specific instance when a reader’s comments helped you to clarify and strengthen your writing.
There are several possible reasons behind such responses:

Because it is so hard to break out of the perspective from which you originally wrote, the easiest and fastest way to true revision is to get some help. This is where peer review comes in. Another reader will, by definition, see what you have written from a different perspective than you do. If you can come to see your writing through the eyes of another, you are already reflecting mindfully on what you have written. And the more practice you have at seeing what you have written from outside your own perspective, the better you will get at doing your own revision. So the key to effective peer review is to show the writer how his writing looks from another perspective.
The problem with both general praise and general criticism is that they are so general. They don’t point clearly to anything the writer can do, except perhaps start over. If this is the kind of peer review you have received in the past, you are probably right in thinking it was a waste of time. Both approaches are “mindless,” in just the way we have used the term in the past.

I was very pleased to see the within-isolate behavior was consistent in replicate experiments one year apart. The authors further argue that the between-isolate differences in behavior arise from a Founder’s effect, at least in the differences in locomotor behavior between the Paris lines CS_TP and CS_JC. I believe this is a very reasonable and testable hypothesis. It predicts that genetic variability for these traits exist within the populations. It should now be possible to perform selection experiments from the original CS_TP population to replicate the founding event and estimate the heritability of these traits.
Finally, as cardiac electrophysiologists, we would like to stress that it seems that our dream of testing drug effects on human ventricular myocytes seems to come true. Indeed, human atrial myocytes are technically, ethically and logistically difficult to get, but human ventricular are almost impossible to be obtained unless from the explanted hearts from patients at the end stage of cardiac diseases. Here the authors demonstrated that ventricular myocytes derived from hiPS generate beautiful action potentials that can be recorded with this automated equipment. The traces shown suggested that there was not alternation in the action potential duration. Is this a consistent finding? How long do last these stable recordings? The only comment is that resting membrane potential seems to be somewhat variable. Can this be resolved? Is it an unexpected veratridine effect? Standardization of maturation methods of ventricular myocytes derived from hiPS will be a big achievement for cardiac cellular electrophysiology which was obliged for years to the imprecise extrapolation of data obtained from a combination of several species none of which was representative of human electrophysiology. The big deal will be the maturation of human atrial myocytes derived from hiPS that fulfil the known characteristics of human atrial cells.

References:

http://serc.carleton.edu/sp/library/peerreview/how.html
http://teachingcenter.wustl.edu/resources/writing-assignments-feedback/using-peer-review-to-help-students-improve-their-writing/
http://www2.palomar.edu/users/jtagg/thinkpeerrev.htm
http://f1000research.com/for-referees/peer-reviewing-tips/examples
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1573062X.2019.1581232