peer review essay checklist high school

• Peer Review Checklist

Each essay is made up of multiple parts. In order to have a strong essay each part must be logical and effective. In many cases essays will be written with a strong thesis, but the rest of the paper will be lacking; making the paper ineffective. An essay is only as strong as its weakest point.

Using a checklist to complete your review will allow you to rate each of the parts in the paper according to their strength. There are many different peer review checklists, but the one below should be helpful for your assignment.

• Is the thesis clear?
• Does the author use his or her own ideas in the thesis and argument?
• Is the significance of the problem in the paper explained? Is the significance compelling?
• Are the ideas developed logically and thoroughly?
• Does the author use ethos effectively?
• Does the author use pathos effectively?
• Are different viewpoints acknowledged?
• Are objections effectively handled?
• Does the author give adequate explanations about sources used?
• Are the sources well-integrated into the paper, or do they seem to be added in just for the sake of adding sources?
• Is the word choice specific, concrete and interesting?
• Are the sentences clear?
• Is the overall organization of the argument effective?
• Are the transitions between paragraphs smooth?
• Are there any grammatical errors?

Based on the rubric found at: Grading Rubric Template (Word)

• Authored by : J. Indigo Eriksen. Provided by : Blue Ridge Community College. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Image of checklist. Authored by : Jurgen Appelo. Located at : https://flic.kr/p/hykfe7 . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Peer Review Checklist. Authored by : Robin Parent. Provided by : Utah State University English Department. Project : USU Open CourseWare Initiative. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Table of Contents

Instructor Resources (Access Requires Login)

• Overview of Instructor Resources

An Overview of the Writing Process

• Introduction to the Writing Process
• Introduction to Writing
• Your Role as a Learner
• What is an Essay?
• Reading to Write
• Defining the Writing Process
• Videos: Prewriting Techniques
• Thesis Statements
• Organizing an Essay
• Creating Paragraphs
• Conclusions
• Editing and Proofreading
• Matters of Grammar, Mechanics, and Style
• Comparative Chart of Writing Strategies

Using Sources

• Quoting, Paraphrasing, and Avoiding Plagiarism
• Formatting the Works Cited Page (MLA)
• Citing Paraphrases and Summaries (APA)
• APA Citation Style, 6th edition: General Style Guidelines

Definition Essay

• Definitional Argument Essay
• How to Write a Definition Essay
• Critical Thinking
• Video: Thesis Explained
• Effective Thesis Statements
• Student Sample: Definition Essay

Narrative Essay

• Introduction to Narrative Essay
• Student Sample: Narrative Essay
• "Shooting an Elephant" by George Orwell
• "Sixty-nine Cents" by Gary Shteyngart
• Video: The Danger of a Single Story
• How to Write an Annotation
• How to Write a Summary
• Writing for Success: Narration

Illustration/Example Essay

• Introduction to Illustration/Example Essay
• "She's Your Basic L.O.L. in N.A.D" by Perri Klass
• "April & Paris" by David Sedaris
• Writing for Success: Illustration/Example
• Student Sample: Illustration/Example Essay

Compare/Contrast Essay

• Introduction to Compare/Contrast Essay
• "Disability" by Nancy Mairs
• "Friending, Ancient or Otherwise" by Alex Wright
• "A South African Storm" by Allison Howard
• Writing for Success: Compare/Contrast
• Student Sample: Compare/Contrast Essay

Cause-and-Effect Essay

• Introduction to Cause-and-Effect Essay
• "Cultural Baggage" by Barbara Ehrenreich
• "Women in Science" by K.C. Cole
• Writing for Success: Cause and Effect
• Student Sample: Cause-and-Effect Essay

Argument Essay

• Introduction to Argument Essay
• Rogerian Argument
• "The Case Against Torture," by Alisa Soloman
• "The Case for Torture" by Michael Levin
• How to Write a Summary by Paraphrasing Source Material
• Writing for Success: Argument
• Student Sample: Argument Essay
• Grammar/Mechanics Mini-lessons
• Mini-lesson: Subjects and Verbs, Irregular Verbs, Subject Verb Agreement
• Mini-lesson: Sentence Types
• Mini-lesson: Fragments I
• Mini-lesson: Run-ons and Comma Splices I
• Mini-lesson: Comma Usage
• Mini-lesson: Parallelism
• Mini-lesson: The Apostrophe
• Mini-lesson: Capital Letters
• Grammar Practice - Interactive Quizzes
• De Copia - Demonstration of the Variety of Language
• Style Exercise: Voice

Editing Checklist for Self- and Peer Editing

About this printout

This helpful tool will give your students the opportunity to edit their own writing and then observe as their peers edit the same work.

Teaching with this printout

More ideas to try, related resources.

Before you begin, be sure to model and discuss each step of the writing process (prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing), preferably using a whole-class story or class newsletter article. Please note that the revising stage precedes editing. Student should have already worked through content revisions before reaching the editing step. When they are ready for the editing stage of the writing process, students should edit their writing and then meet with a partner to engage in peer editing. Prior to having students use this tool independently, it is important to model its use. To do this, display sample text on an overhead projector, document camera, or SMART Board so that all students can view it. Model the use of the self-edit column with the displayed text, with you assuming the role of author. Then have a volunteer fill out the peer-edit column so that all students can hear and view the process. Finally, discuss what went well and what could be improved in the editing steps that were modeled. This tool serves multiple purposes, including:

• The self-edit step

encourages students to evaluate specific features of their writing, increasing self-awareness of writing conventions keeps the pen in the writer’s hand for the initial editing phase

• The peer-edit step

helps build a learning community in which peers work collaboratively heightens the awareness of various print and grammatical conventions for the peer editor and the author

• Use a fish-bowl technique to allow the class to view a self- and peer-edit session of two of their classmates. To do this, first choose one student to model the self-editing phase. It is helpful to select a student who has a good understanding of the criteria on the rubric, such as proper grammar and punctuation. That student works through the items in the self-edit column as the other students observe. It is helpful to put the editing checklist on an overhead projector or document camera so all students can see the process. After the self-edit is complete, discuss the process with the students. Next, choose another student to serve as the peer editor for the piece that was just self-edited.  Have the two students sit in the middle of the class so that all students can see and hear them as they work through the peer-editing phase. Afterward, include the entire class in a discussion about the process itself and ways in which the editing session will help the author and peer editor improve on their writing.
• Have students work in groups of two or three to edit one piece of writing. The interaction between peers will help make the editing process more explicit. While the students are working in groups, move from group to group to check their understanding of the editing process and use of the checklist. Try to notice groups that lack comments in the “Comments and Suggestions” columns and encourage them to use this section to provide feedback to the writer, particularly for criteria that lack a check mark. To guide them, you could ask, “What do you think you could write in the ‘Comments’ section to help the writer fix this error?” Be sure to tell students that if they are unable to mark a check in the “After completing each step, place a check here” column, they must indicate the reason why they cannot check it in the “Comments and Suggestions” column.
• If your school uses a team approach for grouping students (a group of students who all share the same content area teachers), consider encouraging other team teachers to use this checklist in their respective content areas. Consistency in the editing process will help students understand that the editing process can apply to all written pieces, regardless of the content area.
• Strategy Guides
• Lesson Plans

This strategy guide explains the writing process and offers practical methods for applying it in your classroom to help students become proficient writers.

• Print this resource

Explore Resources by Grade

• Kindergarten K

Using Student Peer Review

Teachers frequently use student peer review to increase the amount of feedback students receive on their writing and speaking assignments. Choose any item below to learn more about how to integrate peer review into your classroom:

Planning for Peer Review Sessions

Helping students offer effective feedback.

• Providing Guidance on Using Feedback

Sample Workshop Sheets

• Citation Information

Peer review is excellent way to enhance your students' writing experience. Below are some ways to make the most out of a peer review session:

• Think about logistics
• Specify tasks for the peer review
• Model how to use the workshop sheet or criteria list before peer review
• Consider sequencing the peer-review tasks in multiple workshops
• Provide adequate time for students to conduct thorough peer review of drafts

Think About Logistics

The logistics of peer review are generally simple, but they do require some forethought. If you want students to read papers in a round-robin exercise or to exchange papers with one other student, you don't need to require any photocopying. But if you want each student to read three other papers, make sure you remind students to bring three copies of their papers to class on the day of the exchange.

You can let students pick their own peer-review partners or group members, but you might also consider assigning peer reviewers based on your knowledge of students' writing and editing skills.

If you hold in-class peer-review sessions, circulate during the session to make sure students are on track and to intervene as necessary. Also, save a few minutes at the end of the session to discussion common problems with the class as a whole.

Specify Tasks for the Peer Review

Even if you decide to let students do an "open" review (in which they imagine themselves as members of the target audience and give "reader response" reactions), make that task clear as you set up the peer-review session.

If you want to have students review particular features of a paper, make sure that those tasks are clear and precise. Although you can list tasks on the board, students often prefer a worksheet that notes specific tasks. If students can write their commentary on a word processor, they are likely to write more extensive comments, so take advantage of computer supports whenever possible.

Model How to Use the Workshop Sheet or Criteria List Before Peer Review

Although most students will have had experience with peer review in writing classes in high school and freshman composition, students can still benefit from understanding each teacher's expectations of the peer-review session. One of the most effective techniques is to provide a sample student paper (either as a handout or on overhead transparencies) and to elicit class comments on each point on your workshop sheet. Teachers can then elaborate on points students bring up or clarify what writing skills the points on the workshop sheet are designed to help students review.

Consider Sequencing the Peer-Review Tasks in Multiple Workshops

If you want students to look for particular features of a paper, try having them do so in a step-by-step fashion. Students often feel most comfortable moving through a sequence from simply identifying a feature, to evaluating it, to suggesting revisions. Particularly if you give students multiple peer-review opportunities, keep this sequence in mind. Create each workshop sheet so that it builds upon the prior one. And as you design these worksheets, label each level of task clearly so that students know if they are to identify or suggest revisions as part of a given peer-review session.

Allow Adequte Time for Students to Conduct Thorough Review of Drafts

The longer the paper or the more complex the criteria, the longer students will take to complete a thorough peer review. If you assign shorter papers, you can easily devote a part of a class to peer review or ask students to complete the peer review outside of class. But if you assign long, complex papers, consider breaking the peer review into several short chunks. For instance, students might complete one peer reading looking just for problems with focus, another for weaknesses in organization and development, and still another on graphics. Finally, students might have one or two additional peer-review sessions devoted exclusively to mechanics.

If you're concerned about taking so much class time for multiple peer reviews, consider the alternatives outlined under "Do I need to give students class time for peer-review sessions?"

The least helpful comment to receive from a peer reviewer is "It looks OK to me." We want students to find strengths or positive features in a draft, but we need to encourage them to be as specific as possible, both about strengths and weaknesses.

Model Effective Commenting

As you model how to give effective commentary in peer review, remind students of the following points:

• Always point out strengths as well as elements that need more work.
• Try to attend to larger issues first (audience, purpose, organization, detail, etc.). Talk about sentences, word choices, punctuation only late in the peer-review process.
• Be specific. Point to particular places in the paper where revision will be helpful.
• I got confused here.
• I saw your point clearly here.
• I was convinced by your example or analogy or argument.
• If you disagree with the comments of another peer reviewer, say so. Not all readers react the same ways, and divergent points of view can help writers see options for revising.
• Make comments in spirit of helpfulness. Take comments in spirit of helpfulness.

Provide Incentives for Helpful Comments

If students don't see the value of peer review, they are unlikely to spend much time reviewing others' papers or to take peer advice seriously. The most effective way to encourage students to take peer review seriously, both as the reviewer and as the writer, is to include effective peer review as part of the overall grade for the paper. Skimming peer review comments will take just a few minutes (even for multiple reviews of complex papers), and you'll quickly see which students provided the most helpful commentary. Alternatively, you can ask students to rank their peer reviewers and base the peer review part of grade on peer ratings.

If you're uncomfortable weighing the quality of peer reviewing in the paper grade, consider dividing the course grade to include a separate class participation or peer-reviewing grade.

Provide Guidance on Using Feedback

Remind students that they are responsible for the final drafts they submit to you, but that they should carefully weigh each comment they receive from a peer reviewer. Comments that suggest radically different revisions of the same part of a paper generally help writers see various ways to revise but may confuse students about what to do. Students need not choose one of the suggested revisions, but they should note that multiple suggestions pointed at the same part of a paper typically highlight a place where some revision is necessary for readers.

Five sample workshop sheets are provided below.

Arguing Essay Worksheet 1: Composition 2xx

Writer's Name: _____________________

Editor's name and phone number: _____________________

The primary purpose of this worksheet is to insure that the writer has developed a convincing argument. Imagine, then, that you are the writer's opponent (and so be sure to identify the target audience). Try your best to spot the weaknesses in the essay you are reading. In effect, you will be helping the writer to make sure that s/he has a convincing argument BEFORE it is submitted in the portfolio.

• Read the essay once and record your first impressions:
• If there is a thesis or claim, what is it?
• Any suggestions for improving the thesis or claim?
• What are the writer's main supporting arguments?
• What counter-arguments does the writer refute?
• What counter-arguments can you think of in addition to those above? (Remember, you are the writer's opponent.)
• What can you suggest about reordering or beefing up arguments?
• Any last advice before the writer goes on to the next draft?

Worksheet for portfolio 2: Composition 2xx

Writer: _____________________    

Reader: ________________________

Reader's Telephone Number: _____________________

Ask the writer what questions or concerns he or she has about the paper. Read the paper carefully and respond to those points before you complete the rest of this worksheet.

• Note here the audience for the paper you're reviewing. Be as specific as possible. If the writer has not targeted a specific audience, brainstorm together for ways to specify the audience.
• What is the focus of this paper and why is that focus appropriate for the target audience?
• Is the claim adequately focused--narrow within manageable/defensible limits? Why or why not?
• Do you feel the writer needs to add any qualifiers or exceptions to avoid over-generalizing the claim? If yes, explain.
• Are the writer's reasons sound in logic, and do they follow logically from the claim? Why or why not?
• Can you think of any additional refutations the writer could add?
• Where has the writer used effective evidence or detail? Where might the writer include more evidence? (Also, take a moment to jot questions on the paper that would help the writer see where and what detail to add.)
• Is the paper interesting to read? Why? (If you see gaps in the information provided, be sure to point out those gaps to the writer.)
• Has the writer cited appropriate and unbiased sources of information? Are quotations integrated into the text? Are the citations clear? Do you see any places where the writer needs to cite a source but now doesn't? Point those out to the writer.

Final Workshop for Portfolio 2: Composition 2xx

Read the paper carefully and answer the following questions.

• What is the purpose of the paper?
• Who is the designated audience for the paper?
• How has the writer presented appropriate background information or accounted for bias on the part of the reader?
• What more could the writer do to get and keep the reader interested in the paper?
• Where might the writer add additional detail or flesh out an argument? Suggest specific additions that would help the writer meet the goal of the paper.
• Take any one paragraph and revise it for clarity and conciseness. Suggest other paragraphs that could benefit from the same revisions.
• The strongest part of this paper now is_____.
• The part of the paper that still needs work is_____.
• If you have time, note significant proofreading problems on the draft.

Style review of drafts for Portfolio 2: Composition 2xx

This workshop sheet will help you attend to stylistic matters as you polish close-to-final drafts. If the writer needs to make major changes in content or organization, do not use this sheet. If you notice stylistic matters that this sheet does not address but that the writer should work on, be sure to discuss those with the writer.

• Note here the audience for the paper you're reviewing.
• Now read the paper completely before you answer the remaining questions.
• What suggestions can you make for a stronger opening for the paper? Be sure to discuss a range of possibilities for the target audience or publication.
• Does the conclusion of the paper provide closure for the reader? Are you left dangling? Or are you offended by reading a summary of a short paper that you can clearly remember? Suggest improvements.
• Has the writer used headings to indicate major chunks of the paper? Would headings improve the reader's ease in following the logic or flow of the paper? Suggest specific changes.
• Does the writer use adequate transitions between and within paragraphs? If not, suggest specific revisions.
• Has the writer integrated appropriate visuals? If not, suggest places where the text would be supplemented or complemented by a graphic.
• Has the writer relied too often on short or simple sentences? Do you, as a reader, perceive adequate sentence variety? If not, choose a paragraph that seems particularly repetitive and work on sentence combining for greater variety in sentence length and structure.
• As you read through the paper, did any words, phrases, or sentences "sound" funny to you? We often "hear" mistakes that we cannot necessarily label. Circle any words that don't sound right. If you cannot suggest a way to fix the problem, be sure to ask me.
• Has the writer used precise language throughout the paper? In other words, has the writer chosen exactly the right word to convey his or her meaning? Choose any one paragraph and work on substituting more precise language appropriate for the audience.
• Has the writer used more words to convey an idea than he or she needs to? Pick out any paragraph and work with the writer to remove deadwood. Then be sure to point out where else the writer might prune the text.

Workshop Sheet for Summary: Composition 1xx

Writer's Name: ___________________________

Editor's Name and Phone Number: ___________________________________

Read through the paper completely before answering any of the following questions.

• 1. Has the writer noted the author and title of the essay being summarized? YES NO
• 2. Has the writer included a clear restatement of the author's main point? YES NO
• What other points that you don't see here should the writer include for a thorough summary of the article?
• What, if any, key examples or details should the writer add to the summary?
• Does the summary follow the organization of the original essay? Would a different arrangement be easier for a reader to understand? Suggest revisions.
• Has the writer maintained objectivity throughout the summary? If you see places where the writer's opinions or reactions are creeping in, please bracket those for the writer to attend to.
• Suggest revisions to reduce bias created by word choices.
• Where might the writer use additional author tags to help the reader?
• Mark any places in the draft where you have trouble reading and note whether a transition, clearer wording, or additional detail would help most.
• Where can you suggest other specific improvements in the summary? (Please refer to the criteria on the earlier handout for other possible points to revise.)
• What concerns does the writer still have about revising this summary? What can you suggest to help the writer?
• What's the most effective part of this summary?

GUIDELINES FOR IN-CLASS PEER REVIEW

Professor david sorkin, history/jewish studies 529.

Instructions: Please read this sheet carefully in order to know how you are to help your peers.

Bring three copies of your paper to class.

Each of you will read your paper aloud. Reading aloud is the best way to judge the clarity and coherence of a paper because it enables us to connect the written word with the spoken one. If an argument has broken off; if a sentence is unclear, wordy, inaccurate or pretentious; if there is a lack of evidence; or if there is a logical gap—all of these will be immediately obvious (to the writer as well as the reviewers). Reading aloud can be a humbling experience, there is no denying that, but it is also a fundamentally productive one.

Reviewers: Concentrate on your own response to the paper rather than rendering judgment. Use the first person (e.g., “I hear…”, “I didn’t understand…”, “I’m confused about…”, “I’d like to hear more about…”, “I couldn’t follow…”). Avoid using the second person (e.g., “you should”, “you need to”, “you ought to”). Responses are a clear guide because they enable the writer to rethink the issues on his/her own. Your responses (1st person) are easier to listen to and accept, and in thus in the end more effective, than your judgments (2nd person).

Hand a copy of your paper to each of your peer reviewers.

Read your paper aloud slowly; pause at the end of each paragraph to give yourself and your reviewers time to write

When you are finished reading, discuss the paper candidly using 1st-person responses. Make sure the writer has

time to write down the comments.

Reviewers: when you have finished discussing the paper, answer the “Peer Review Questions” and then hand the

completed form, and your copy of the paper, to the writer.

Writer: when you hand in your paper

please be sure to include the reviewer forms as well. Staple them to your paper.

please write me a note describing what you found helpful/unhelpful in reading aloud and peer review and

how you revised your paper in light of the process.

Peer Review Questions

Writer: Reviewer:

Introduction. Is the first paragraph an adequate statement of the paper’s topic and approach? Did you know from the first paragraph where the paper was headed?

Continuity. Is the line of argument clear from paragraph to paragraph? Did each paragraph add to the argument?

Evidence. Did the writer support the argument in a convincing manner? Were quotations from the text well chosen?

Conclusion. Does the conclusion draw together the strands of the argument? Is it a sufficient statement of the paper’s main points?

Strengths. What did you find best in the paper?

• Our Mission

A Framework for Teaching Students How to Peer Edit

Giving meaningful feedback on a peer’s work doesn’t come naturally to students. Try these tips to help students hone their editing skills.

Too often, asking students to edit each other’s writing results in superficial commentary. Many students are uncertain about how to provide meaningful feedback on a peer’s work. 

One way to make peer review more effective is by scaffolding it, or breaking down the practice into several classes where students critique each other’s work in a more focused, incremental manner. Scaffolding allows students to identify and address a single type of error in an allotted time period. While it is a valuable process for all students, it is especially useful for English-language learners and learning-support students, who benefit from breaking tasks and information into more manageable components. 

Deconstruct Constructive Criticism

Students need to learn how to give and receive criticism in a productive and respectful manner. Before embarking on a class-wide peer review activity, teachers might underscore the importance of responses that are forthright and civil. Mastering the art of giving valuable feedback that doesn’t offend will benefit students in nearly every professional and personal relationship they maintain. 

Start by breaking down the two words: constructive and criticism . What do these words mean by themselves? What synonyms might apply to each word? Ask students to think of examples of ways they might offer constructive criticism on a peer’s writing. They can be as simple as “Remember to capitalize proper nouns” or “Restate your thesis in your final paragraph.” Underscore to students that the criticism must be specific and helpful. “Good job!” doesn’t suffice. Write their responses on one or two poster boards, and place them where students can see them and refer back to them throughout the process. 

Provide samples of criticism for students to emulate. You may want to advise learners to attach positive feedback with constructive criticism. For example, “Your hook poses a good question, but it contains several grammar errors” or “You inserted this quotation correctly.” 

As there is no definitive guide to constructive criticism, teachers and students are encouraged to discuss what constitutes responsible feedback to find a definition and standards that best suit the class.

Set Clear Plans

In the same way that instruction often demands that educators create the assessment first, teachers should prepare for the peer review at the beginning of any writing assignment. A scaffolded peer review can be time-consuming, so consider the length of the writing assignment to be assessed when making a determination about the class time required. 

Before assigning writing, consider what writing skills you want your students to learn, review, or practice. The objectives will vary by class, and they should be articulated to students from the outset. Some teachers may have the class focus on writing an effective thesis, incorporating quotations, or adding in-text citations. In other classes, the objective may be reviewing capitalization or comma usage. Identify the skills that students are expected to practice writing and finding in each other’s papers.

Facilitate the Process

Scaffolding the peer review provides an opportunity for students to read a piece multiple times to assess different elements of writing. First the class reviews the objective as a whole group. Then peer pairs review their individual writing with a focus on the defined learning objective. 

Some students may be reluctant to criticize peers’ work. Consider choosing peer-review partners instead of letting the students pick. This might cut down on students’ being fearful of offending their friends. Also, if the debrief period is generating little discussion, ask students to debrief with their partners as opposed to in front of the class. Give students a set of debrief prompts to focus their discussion, such as “Discuss the corrections you made.” 

Encourage students to refer to the posters regarding constructive criticism examples, especially if someone has given an impolite criticism. 

Debrief as a Class

After the pair reviews, debrief by discussing the findings as a class. The debrief can be an open-ended session in which the teacher encourages students to ask questions and voice misunderstandings about both writing and critiquing. The debrief can also be more structured and incorporate specific questions, such as “What is a challenge an editor or peer reviewer might face?” or “What is one element of your writing you wish to improve upon?” The debrief can also take the form of a small writing assignment, such as a reflective paragraph on the peer review process in which students summarize what they have learned as an editor and proofreader.

We want our students to be proficient writers and thinkers. Reviewing a peer’s work can help young people better understand the often difficult process of writing by challenging them to adopt a dynamic new role as critic.

Please log in to save materials. Log in

Peer Review for Argumentative Research Essay

This is a peer review checklist for the first full draft of a 3500 word Argumentative Research Essay.

After reading a memoir or novel, the students choose a topic from the book and conduct research. The students brainstorm about how the topic from the book relates to something that is going on in their own community, city, state, or country. At this point, the students come up with a preliminary thesis statement that contains their argument. The requirements for this essay are 3500 word count and 6 substantive sources (2 books, 3 scholarly journal articles, and a source of their choice).

English 101

First Draft Requirements

In order to insure everyone is on the right track for the Research Argumentative Essay, here is a checklist that can guide you through the writing process.

Include a Works Cited page of the sources used in the essay so far.

Underline the Thesis Statement

Color code each source, paraphrasing and direct quotes, in the essay. You may use different color highlighters or choose different font colors and print it in color.

Have all parts of the essay (even if they’re still a work in progress): introduction, body paragraphs, conclusion. 

Include examples (direct quotes or paraphrasing with citations) of your chosen topic in the memoir or novel we read in class. 

Circle the topic sentences for each paragraph. (Note: a topic sentence contains the main idea of that specific paragraph, and it should also support the thesis statement.)

Print out three (3) copies of your first draft to use for peer review in class. 

https://flic.kr/p/nKPbtE

Peer review templates, expert examples and free training courses

Joanna Wilkinson

Learning how to write a constructive peer review is an essential step in helping to safeguard the quality and integrity of published literature. Read on for resources that will get you on the right track, including peer review templates, example reports and the Web of Science™ Academy: our free, online course that teaches you the core competencies of peer review through practical experience ( try it today ).

How to write a peer review

Understanding the principles, forms and functions of peer review will enable you to write solid, actionable review reports. It will form the basis for a comprehensive and well-structured review, and help you comment on the quality, rigor and significance of the research paper. It will also help you identify potential breaches of normal ethical practice.

This may sound daunting but it doesn’t need to be. There are plenty of peer review templates, resources and experts out there to help you, including:

Peer review training courses and in-person workshops

• Peer review templates ( found in our Web of Science Academy )
• Expert examples of peer review reports
• Co-reviewing (sharing the task of peer reviewing with a senior researcher)

Other peer review resources, blogs, and guidelines

We’ll go through each one of these in turn below, but first: a quick word on why learning peer review is so important.

Why learn to peer review?

Peer reviewers and editors are gatekeepers of the research literature used to document and communicate human discovery. Reviewers, therefore, need a sound understanding of their role and obligations to ensure the integrity of this process. This also helps them maintain quality research, and to help protect the public from flawed and misleading research findings.

Learning to peer review is also an important step in improving your own professional development.

You’ll become a better writer and a more successful published author in learning to review. It gives you a critical vantage point and you’ll begin to understand what editors are looking for. It will also help you keep abreast of new research and best-practice methods in your field.

We strongly encourage you to learn the core concepts of peer review by joining a course or workshop. You can attend in-person workshops to learn from and network with experienced reviewers and editors. As an example, Sense about Science offers peer review workshops every year. To learn more about what might be in store at one of these, researcher Laura Chatland shares her experience at one of the workshops in London.

There are also plenty of free, online courses available, including courses in the Web of Science Academy such as ‘Reviewing in the Sciences’, ‘Reviewing in the Humanities’ and ‘An introduction to peer review’

The Web of Science Academy also supports co-reviewing with a mentor to teach peer review through practical experience. You learn by writing reviews of preprints, published papers, or even ‘real’ unpublished manuscripts with guidance from your mentor. You can work with one of our community mentors or your own PhD supervisor or postdoc advisor, or even a senior colleague in your department.

Go to the Web of Science Academy

Peer review templates

Peer review templates are helpful to use as you work your way through a manuscript. As part of our free Web of Science Academy courses, you’ll gain exclusive access to comprehensive guidelines and a peer review report. It offers points to consider for all aspects of the manuscript, including the abstract, methods and results sections. It also teaches you how to structure your review and will get you thinking about the overall strengths and impact of the paper at hand.

• Web of Science Academy template (requires joining one of the free courses)
• PLoS’s review template
• Wiley’s peer review guide (not a template as such, but a thorough guide with questions to consider in the first and second reading of the manuscript)

Beyond following a template, it’s worth asking your editor or checking the journal’s peer review management system. That way, you’ll learn whether you need to follow a formal or specific peer review structure for that particular journal. If no such formal approach exists, try asking the editor for examples of other reviews performed for the journal. This will give you a solid understanding of what they expect from you.

Peer review examples

Understand what a constructive peer review looks like by learning from the experts.

Here’s a sample of pre and post-publication peer reviews displayed on Web of Science publication records to help guide you through your first few reviews. Some of these are transparent peer reviews , which means the entire process is open and visible — from initial review and response through to revision and final publication decision. You may wish to scroll to the bottom of these pages so you can first read the initial reviews, and make your way up the page to read the editor and author’s responses.

• Pre-publication peer review: Patterns and mechanisms in instances of endosymbiont-induced parthenogenesis
• Pre-publication peer review: Can Ciprofloxacin be Used for Precision Treatment of Gonorrhea in Public STD Clinics? Assessment of Ciprofloxacin Susceptibility and an Opportunity for Point-of-Care Testing
• Transparent peer review: Towards a standard model of musical improvisation
• Transparent peer review: Complex mosaic of sexual dichromatism and monochromatism in Pacific robins results from both gains and losses of elaborate coloration
• Post-publication peer review: Brain state monitoring for the future prediction of migraine attacks
• Web of Science Academy peer review: Students’ Perception on Training in Writing Research Article for Publication

F1000 has also put together a nice list of expert reviewer comments pertaining to the various aspects of a review report.

Co-reviewing

Co-reviewing (sharing peer review assignments with senior researchers) is one of the best ways to learn peer review. It gives researchers a hands-on, practical understanding of the process.

In an article in The Scientist , the team at Future of Research argues that co-reviewing can be a valuable learning experience for peer review, as long as it’s done properly and with transparency. The reason there’s a need to call out how co-reviewing works is because it does have its downsides. The practice can leave early-career researchers unaware of the core concepts of peer review. This can make it hard to later join an editor’s reviewer pool if they haven’t received adequate recognition for their share of the review work. (If you are asked to write a peer review on behalf of a senior colleague or researcher, get recognition for your efforts by asking your senior colleague to verify the collaborative co-review on your Web of Science researcher profiles).

The Web of Science Academy course ‘Co-reviewing with a mentor’ is uniquely practical in this sense. You will gain experience in peer review by practicing on real papers and working with a mentor to get feedback on how their peer review can be improved. Students submit their peer review report as their course assignment and after internal evaluation receive a course certificate, an Academy graduate badge on their Web of Science researcher profile and is put in front of top editors in their field through the Reviewer Locator at Clarivate.

Here are some external peer review resources found around the web:

• Peer Review Resources from Sense about Science
• Peer Review: The Nuts and Bolts by Sense about Science
• How to review journal manuscripts by R. M. Rosenfeld for Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery
• Ethical guidelines for peer review from COPE
• An Instructional Guide for Peer Reviewers of Biomedical Manuscripts by Callaham, Schriger & Cooper for Annals of Emergency Medicine (requires Flash or Adobe)
• EQUATOR Network’s reporting guidelines for health researchers

And finally, we’ve written a number of blogs about handy peer review tips. Check out some of our top picks:

• How to Write a Peer Review: 12 things you need to know
• Want To Peer Review? Top 10 Tips To Get Noticed By Editors
• Review a manuscript like a pro: 6 tips from a Web of Science Academy supervisor
• How to write a structured reviewer report: 5 tips from an early-career researcher

Want to learn more? Become a master of peer review and connect with top journal editors. The Web of Science Academy – your free online hub of courses designed by expert reviewers, editors and Nobel Prize winners. Find out more today.

Related posts

Reimagining research impact: introducing web of science research intelligence.

Beyond discovery: AI and the future of the Web of Science

Clarivate welcomes the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information

• About NuWrite
• Writing Advice
• Engineering & Design
• General writing advice
• Academic integrity and avoiding plagiarism (Northwestern WCAS)
• Grammar and punctuation
• Analytical writing
• Research papers
• Graphics and visuals
• Conferences
• Peer editing sheets for drafts
• Peer feedback form literature seminar
• Peer review Asian diaspora freshman seminar
• Research draft peer review
• Research paper introduction peer response
• Research paper peer evaluation of claims
• Peer editing science papers
• Getting the most out of peer reviews
• Peer review guidelines for a personal essay
• Writing assignments
• Freshman seminar award essays
• Useful links with writing advice
• Grading criteria
• Global Health
• Writing in the Humanities
• Science Writing
• Social Science Writing
• Writing for Graduate or Professional School
• Writing Advice for International Students
• Faculty-Only Resources

Peer editing

Peer editing can be done during class time or electronically outside of class, as the documents below--from Northwestern instructors--illustrate.  The questions that students respond to can vary according to the nature of the assignment and the purpose of the peer review.

peer editing sheets for drafts Peer editing sheets for two essay assignments in a freshman seminar.  Providing very specific questions helps the editors give useful feedback and suggestions. 

peer feedback form literature seminar Students exchange drafts in class, complete the peer feedback form, and then discuss their written comments with one another.  Students submit the forms with their drafts so that I can read them.  I frequently refer to their peers' comments when I am writing my own comments on their drafts.   

peer review Asian diaspora freshman seminar Students do a close reading of one another's drafts to provide insight into what has and has not been conveyed by the draft.

research draft peer review Prompts peer reviewers to comment on key pieces of information, logical organization, and conclusion

research paper introduction peer response Prompts peer editor to comment on introduction, and prompts author to respond to those comments

research paper peer evaluation of claims Prompts peer editor to evaluate the paper's effectiveness in supporting claims and addressing counter-arguments

peer editing science papers Prompts peer editor to complete a checklist on the paper's content, structure, and grammar

getting the most out of peer reviews A link to NU's Writing Place that explains how to make sure you benefit from sharing your writing with peers

peer review guidelines for a personal essay These guidelines from a freshman seminar are aimed at pairs of students who are exchanging drafts before meeting individually with the instructor. 

• Contact Northwestern University
• Campus Emergency Information
• University Policies

Northwestern University Library | 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston, IL 60208-2300 |  Phone: 847.491.7658  |  Fax: 847.491.8306  |  Email: [email protected]