peer review questions for essays

• University of Pennsylvania
• School of Arts and Sciences
• Penn Calendar

Search form

Questions for Peer Review

Katherine milligan.

1. (Argument) Summarize the main idea of the draft briefly in your own words.

2. (Argument, Organization) Does the opening establish a clear starting point for the paper (a thesis, or at least a focussed topic)? Would some other part of the draft make a better introduction?

3. (Argument) Does the paper conclude with a whimper or a shout? Is the conclusion merely repetitive, or does it synthesize ideas, suggest new directions of thought, re-evaluate the introductory statements?

4. (Argument) Has any significant aspect of the question been neglected?

5. (Argument) Is there any point where the paper tends to fall from the level of analysis to the level of observation?

6. (Organization) How does the draft hold together? Which paragraphs don't connect well with preceding or subsequent ones?

7. (Organization, Evidence) Are there paragraphs that seem less coherent or less convincing than others? If so, choose one and explain how it might be clarified and/or better supported.

8. (Evidence) Select the best phrases, paragraphs, and/or ideas in the paper. Can they be exploited more thoroughly? How?

9. (Mechanics) Note problems with sentence structure, grammar, word choice, and other mechanical issues.

10. Respond to any questions the writer poses about her/his own draft.

Academic Programs

• Tuition & Financial Aid

Student Experience

The power of peer editing: five questions to ask in the review.

You’ve put in the work of researching, reading, writing and revising your paper. You’ve read it out loud and followed the assignment requirements.

You’re going strong, but there’s still another step you need to perfect your paper.

The peer edit.

Utilizing peer review in your writing process may not always be easy. You’re offering the paper that you’ve spent hours on up for critique.

But the peer edit can be so beneficial in enhancing your writing.

We may often think of “peer review” in terms of journal articles that have been analyzed and approved for accuracy. While your paper won’t require that same heightened, professional level of critique, bringing it to one of your peers—whether a classmate, a friend, a mentor—can enhance your research paper greatly.

Here, we share about the importance of incorporating a peer review process for both the author and the reviewer.

What is Peer Review?

A peer review of your research paper is different than the editing process that you go through. Rather than you going through each section, citation, argument in your paper, someone else does. A peer review involves handing it to someone you trust to allow them to read it and provide feedback to help make your paper the best it can be.

This is no small feat. It requires you to be vulnerable about what you’ve written. You need to be willing to accept mistakes you may make and be committed to accepting their suggestions as a way to grow in your writing and academic work.

Why is Peer Review Important?

This stage of the editing process is unique in that pulls in another perspective. Unlike you, your peer editor hasn’t been immersed in reading and research on your paper’s topic. They don’t know for certain what direction your paper will go or what your arguments are.

This new, objective perspective brings great value in revision.

A fresh set of eyes sees issues, gaps, mistakes and clouded arguments that you may have missed or had not thought of.

When your peer editor sits down and sifts through your paper, they provide both positive comments of what’s going well in the paper, as well as opportunities for improvement in areas that may be unclear. Their input helps make your paper better, if you choose to follow their recommendations.

If you’re working with a classmate, trade papers and review each other’s paper. This not only allows you to receive feedback on your paper, but it also develops your skills in providing feedback and looking for specific elements in a paper. You become a better editor. Whether you’re passing your paper off or reviewing a paper, your skills in writing can be greatly enhanced.

Questions to Ask in the Peer Review

In the peer review process, it’s helpful to have a plan of action in addressing the paper. Below are five questions that can help guide the process. Whether you’re the author or the reviewer (or both), these five questions can help focus your attention on key components of the assignment and enhance your skills.

Question 1: Is the Audience and Purpose of the Paper Clearly Established?

As a reviewer, one of the first things you want to be sure to notice in the paper is if you can figure out who the paper is addressing. The audience of the paper should be evident in reference to the topic, the tone of the paper and the type of language used.

For example, if the paper contains a lot of jargon and industry-specific language, you could infer that the audience would be familiar with those terms. If not, you may want to suggest using less jargon or explaining the terms used.

The purpose of the paper should also be very clear and straightforward to you as the new reader. The thesis statement, most often in the introduction, should clearly convey the purpose. But from the opening to the main arguments to the concluding statement, the purpose of the paper should be obvious.

As a peer reviewer, you can help the author determine if both the audience and purpose of the paper are clearly established early on in the paper.

Question 2: Does the Main Point Match the Thesis Statement?

One of the most important sentences in the paper is the author’s thesis statement. The location and type of thesis statement depends on the kind of essay or paper. However, as a general rule, thesis statements should be concise, straightforward and clear in addressing the main argument.

As a new reader, you as the reviewer can provide great insight into the clarity of the thesis.

The Writing Center at the University of North Carolina has a helpful article on crafting the perfect thesis. In this article, they suggest you ask the following questions of the thesis statement:

• Can I find the thesis statement?
• Is the thesis specific enough?
• Does the thesis answer the “so what” question of the paper?
• Does the rest of the paper support the thesis statement?

Peer review can help enhance a thesis statement by noticing gaps or questions in the argument.

Question 3: Does the Paper Flow Well?

When you’re the writer of a paper, you may work in sections. First, you tackle main point A, then move onto B, add in C and finish up with a conclusion.

When you’re a peer reviewer, you’re reading it for the first time all in one glance. With this new perspective, you can more easily identify gaps, questions and concerns in the structure of the paper.

Does point A leap to point B leaving little to hold on to? Note that the author should include a better transition. Are you left wondering what point C has to do with point A? Highlight the need for a better connection between main points.

With an objective, outside perspective, you can help the author improve the flow and clarity of their paper to communicate most effectively.

Question 4: What Areas Need Additional Description?

As a reviewer of a paper, you want to fully understand the content you’re reading. And when you come across a section that you’re left wondering what’s going on, it can be frustrating.

An important question to ask as you review a paper is if each section contains sufficient description and detail to add value to the paper. Notice those areas that come across as too vague and uninteresting. Highlighting the desire for more information encourages the author to add clarity and enhance their ability to communicate effectively.

Question 5: Do you notice any grammar or word choice mistakes?

While this final question may be the most obvious, you want to help your author out by pointing out those grammar and word choice errors that she may have missed.

• Is there an extra comma?
• Does she have subject-verb agreement in all sentences?
• Are most of the sentences in active voice?
• Did they incorrectly cite their source?
• Is there an extra tab in their reference page?

Being on the lookout for these types of errors can also help you as the reviewer to refresh your skills in grammar, punctuation, paragraphs and APA Style.

Incorporating a peer review process in finalizing a paper is immensely beneficial for both the author and the reviewer. Each elevates their writing skills. The author is more confident in the paper she submits and the reviewer grows in her editing ability.

Be Supported as You Pursue Your Goals

PGS offers numerous academic support resources to equip you to succeed in your degree program, whether that’s in writing a paper or other assignments. Visit our academic support web page to discover more essential tools.

Discover academic support

Ellie Walburg

Ellie Walburg (B.S.’17, M.B.A.’20) serves as the admissions communications coordinator for Cornerstone University’s Professional & Graduate Studies division.

Related Posts

Six Steps to Really Edit Your Paper

Looking for Quality Sources? Follow These Guidelines

Let’s Chat! Best Strategies to Weave Personal Interviews Into Your Paper

Must Know Strategies for Achieving Work-Life Balance

6 Simple Ways to Conquer Your Fears of Returning to School

12 Methods to Significantly Improve Your Studying

Want to learn more about cu, connect with cu.

• Student Life
• About Cornerstone
• University Offices
• Faculty & Staff Directory

Recent News

• Cornerstone University Welcomes Rev. Corey Brooks as 82nd Commencement Distinguished Guest Speaker
• Free Tuition Expands Through the Cornerstone Commitment Grant for 2024/25
• Nursing Program Is Now CCNE Accredited

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

Demonstrating socioeconomic impact – a historical perspective of ancient wisdom and modern challenges.

Unlocking U.K. research excellence: Key insights from the Research Professional News Live summit

For better insights, assess research performance at the department level

• Writing Center
• Current Students
• Online Only Students
• Faculty & Staff
• Parents & Family
• Alumni & Friends
• Community & Business
• Student Life
• Video Introduction
• Become a Writing Assistant
• All Writers
• Graduate Students
• ELL Students
• Campus and Community
• Testimonials
• Encouraging Writing Center Use
• Incentives and Requirements
• Open Educational Resources
• How We Help
• Get to Know Us
• Conversation Partners Program
• Workshop Series
• Professors Talk Writing
• Computer Lab
• Starting a Writing Center
• A Note to Instructors
• Annotated Bibliography
• Literature Review
• Research Proposal
• Argument Essay
• Rhetorical Analysis

Argument Essay Peer Review

As a writer . . .  

Step 1 : Underline your thesis statement.  

Step 2: Include answers to the following two questions at the top of your draft:  

• What questions do you have for your reviewer? 
• List two concerns you have about your argument essay.  

   Step 3: When you receive your peer's feedback, read and consider it carefully.  

Remember: you are not bound to accept everything your reader suggests; if you believe that the response comes as a result of misunderstanding your intentions, be sure that those intentions are clear. The problem can be either with the reader or the writer!  

As a reviewer . . .  

As you begin writing your peer review, remember that your peer will benefit more from constructive criticism than vague praise. A comment like "I got confused here" or "I saw your point clearly here" is more useful than "It looks okay to me." Point out ways your classmates can improve their work.  

Step 1: Read your peer’s draft two times.  

Read the draft once to get an overview of the paper, and a second time to provide constructive criticism for the author to use when revising the draft.  

Step 2: Answer the following questions:  

• What is the writer’s thesis statement? (Copy it here.)  
• Is the thesis clear and well-supported?  
• Is the paper overly general, or does the writer make specific claims and then back them up using logical reasoning and/or researched evidence?  
• Does the writing “flow” smoothly? Note sentences or sections where flow could  be improved.  
• Is the essay reasonably free of sentence and spelling errors?  
• Remember the MEAL plan – does each paragraph follow this basic structure?  [M – Main idea;  E – Evidence; A – Analysis; L – Link]  
• Are all references to outside materials (direct quotations as well as very specific information that had to have come from reading others’ work) cited, both within the essay and on a Works Cited page?  
• Has the writer used at least three scholarly sources (no Wikipedia, personal blogs, etc.)?   

Step 3: Address your peer’s questions and concerns included at the top of the draft.    

Step 4: Write a short paragraph about what the writer does especially well.    

Step 5: Write a short paragraph about what you think the writer should do to improve the draft.    

Your suggestions will be the most useful part of peer review for your classmates, so focus more of your time on these paragraphs; they will count for more of your peer review grade than the yes or no responses.

Hints for peer review:  

• Point out the strengths in the essay.  
• Address the larger issues first.  
• Make specific suggestions for improvement.  
• Be tactful but be candid and direct.  
• Don’t be afraid to disagree with another reviewer.  
• Make and receive comments in a useful way.  
• Remember peer review is not an editing service; you should not focus on sentence-level errors like punctuation and spelling.    

Contact Info

Kennesaw Campus 1000 Chastain Road Kennesaw, GA 30144

Marietta Campus 1100 South Marietta Pkwy Marietta, GA 30060

Campus Maps

Phone 470-KSU-INFO (470-578-4636)

kennesaw.edu/info

Media Resources

Resources For

Related Links

• Financial Aid
• Degrees, Majors & Programs
• Job Opportunities
• Campus Security
• Global Education
• Sustainability
• Accessibility

470-KSU-INFO (470-578-4636)

© 2024 Kennesaw State University. All Rights Reserved.

• Privacy Statement
• Accreditation
• Emergency Information
• Reporting Hotline
• Open Records
• Human Trafficking Notice

• 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

Use of cookies

Lund University uses cookies to ensure that the website functions properly and to improve your experience.

Read more in our cookie policy

• AWELU contents
• Writing at university
• Different kinds of student texts
• Understanding instructions and stylesheets
• Understanding essay/exam questions

Peer review instructions

• Dealing with feedback
• Checklist for writers
• Research writing resources
• Administrative writing resources
• LU language policy
• Introduction
• What characterises academic writing?
• The heterogeneity of academic writing
• Three-part essays
• IMRaD essays
• How to get started on your response paper
• Student literature review
• Annotated bibliography
• Three versions of the RA
• Examples of specificity within disciplines
• Reviews (review articles and book reviews)
• Popular science writing
• Research posters
• Grant proposals
• Writing for Publication
• Salutations
• Structuring your email
• Direct and indirect approaches
• Useful email phrases
• Language tips for email writers
• Writing memos
• Meeting terminology
• The writing process
• Identifying your audience
• Using invention techniques
• Developing reading strategies
• Taking notes
• Identifying language resources
• Choosing a writing tool
• Framing the text: Title and reference list
• Structure of the whole text
• Structuring the argument
• Structure of introductions
• Structure within sections of the text
• Structure within paragraphs
• Signposting the structure
• Using sources
• What needs to be revised?
• How to revise
• Many vs. much
• Other quantifiers
• Quantifiers in a table
• Miscellaneous quantifiers
• Adjectives and adverbs
• Capitalisation
• Sentence fragment
• Run-on sentences
• What or which?
• Singular noun phrases connected by "or"
• Singular noun phrases connected by "either/or"
• Connected singular and plural noun phrases
• Noun phrases conjoined by "and"
• Subjects containing "along with", "as well as", and "besides"
• Indefinite pronouns and agreement
• Sums of money and periods of time
• Words that indicate portions
• Uncountable nouns
• Dependent clauses and agreement
• Agreement with the right noun phrase
• Some important exceptions and words of advice
• Atypical nouns
• The major word classes
• The morphology of the major word classes
• Words and phrases
• Elements in the noun phrase
• Classes of nouns
• Determiners
• Elements in the verb phrase
• Classes of main verbs
• Auxiliary verbs
• Primary auxiliary verbs
• Modal auxiliary verbs
• Meanings of modal auxiliaries
• Marginal auxiliary verbs
• Time and tense
• Simple and progressive forms
• The perfect
• Active and passive voice
• Adjective phrases
• Adverb phrases
• Personal pronouns
• Dummy pronouns
• Possessive pronouns
• Interrogative pronouns
• Indefinite pronouns
• Quantifiers
• Prepositions and prepositional phrases
• More on adverbials
• The order of subjects and verbs
• Subject-Verb agreement
• Hyphen and dash
• English spelling rules
• Commonly confused words
• Differences between British and American spelling
• Vocabulary awareness
• Useful words and phrases
• Using abbreviations
• Register types
• Formal vs. informal
• DOs & DON'Ts
• General information on dictionary use
• Online dictionary resources
• What is a corpus?
• Examples of the usefulness of a corpus
• Using the World Wide Web as a corpus
• Online corpus resources
• Different kinds of sources
• The functions of references
• Paraphrasing
• Summarising
• Reference accuracy
• Reference management tools
• Different kinds of reference styles
• Style format
• Elements of the reference list
• Documentary note style
• Writing acknowledgements
• What is academic integrity?
• Academic integrity and writing
• Academic integrity at LU
• Different kinds of plagiarism
• Avoiding plagiarism
• About Awelu

• Start here AWELU contents Student writing resources Research writing resources Administrative writing resources LU language policy
• Genres Introduction The Nature of Academic Writing Student writing genres Writing in Academic Genres Writing for Publication Writing for Administrative Purposes
• Writing The writing process Pre-writing stage Writing stage Rewriting stage
• Language Introduction Common problems and how to avoid them Selective mini grammar Coherence Punctuation Spelling Focus on vocabulary Register and style Dictionaries Corpora - resources for writer autonomy References
• Referencing Introduction Different kinds of sources The functions of references How to give references Reference accuracy Reference management tools Using a reference style Quick guides to reference styles Writing acknowledgements
• Academic integrity What is academic integrity? Academic integrity and writing Academic integrity at LU Plagiarism

The following guidelines are intended to be used as a starting point for peer-group discussions of texts. Most of the exercises can also be used on your own text if you are working alone.

Please note that:

• Student peer reviewers are usually not expected to correct mistakes, but rather to identify passages that need revision and to discuss with the writer what kind(s) of problem they have identified.
• If you have been asked to peer review another student's text as part of course work, check the instructions that you have received, as there may be other aspects that need to be taken into consideration than the ones listed below.
• Reading and understanding instructions.

Important: Stay focused and keep a professional tone in all peer reviewing. This means avoiding derogatory remarks and irony, as well as praise that does not help the writer. In all comments you give,

• be specific, for instance by giving examples
• pose questions when the text is unclear rather than just stating that it is unclear
• aim to help the writer but do not try to write the paper for them

How to conduct a peer review

In order to get an overview of the text you have been asked to review, read it through, marking only things that stand out and that you will take a closer look at later on. Then go through the text more carefully, focusing on the issues listed below.

• Is there a clear focus in the text? If not, mark passages that seem irrelevant to the topic and passages that need to be clarified.
• For an essay to be focused, it usually needs to have a clearly identified research question . If you cannot identify what the essay sets out to investigate/discuss, comment on this.
• Focused essays also present an argument. If there is no thesis statement (claim), ask the writer what point they wish to make in their text.

For further information about the terms research question and thesis statement , see this video:

• Research questions and thesis statements
• Does the overall structure of the text work? If not, what changes would you suggest?
• Are the paragraphs well structured (are there topic sentences , for instance)? If paragraph structure is a recurring problem in the text, comment on one or two paragraphs in detail to help the writer revise his or her text.

For further information about topic sentences and paragrpah structure, see

• Structure within paragraphs.
• Why is this important?
• How is this related to your argument?
• Could you give any examples of this?
• Could you clarify this?

For some ideas on how to think about arguments in essays, see this video:

• Structuring an argument

Language: Word choice and grammar

Although it is usually not the peer reviewer's task to mark or correct language errors in the text, the following can help you as you review your peers' texts.

• Are any words overused or 'flat' in the sense that they do not add anything to the argument?
• If the writer is prone to repetitiveness, mark words that recur frequently
• Mark informal language
• What about punctuation?
• Are there any run-on sentences or sentence fragments?

Referencing

If the text draws on previous research, comment on the following:

• Are the sources that have been used relevant for the topic and for the assignment?
• Does the writer make a clear distinction between previous research and what is new (this is, can you distinguish the writer's ideas from what the writer has based on previous research?)
• Have sources been referred to according to instructions that the writer has received?

For information on how to use sources and why, see

• The function of references

Summing up: Strengths and weaknesses

To help the writer of the text you have reviewed, try to sum up your comments in a few sentences. Focus on the following:

• What are the strengths of the text you have read?
• What aspects of the writer's text need more work?

In the online book Writing in English at University: A Guide for Second Language Writers , pp. 27-29, you will find some further instructions and some tips on how to present your feedback.

Peer-reviewing guides for specific stages of the writing process

The following advice can be used as a starting point for reviews of work-in-progress texts. 

Remember that texts look different in different academic fields. The guidelines below focus on general stages of writing that many students come across while working on essays and degree projects.

Peer reviewing an essay/project proposal

Preliminary title    .

• Is the preliminary essay title informative?
• Is the title clear or potentially ambiguous (if the latter, discuss whether this is a good thing or not)

Research question and thesis statement

Note that the thesis statement will be preliminary at this early stage of the writing process.

• Is there a clearly articulated research question and a thesis statement or would you like the essay writer to clarify what will be investigated and what claims will be made?

Outline of essay structure    

• Discuss the proposed structure
• Does the proposed structure seem to be the best structure for the project, or would you like to propose another structure?

Preliminary sources    

• What kinds of sources has the writer located at this stage?
• Are there any kinds of sources that you would have expected, but that have not been listed?

Summing up and self-reflection

• Highlight something in the essay/project proposal that is good and something that may need to be clarified/developed.
• What have you learned by reading other students' essay/project proposals, and in what way has your own project developed from your discussions?

Peer reviewing an introduction section

Consider the questions below as your review your peers' texts.

Contents and structure

• Does the introduction present the topic of the essay/project in a clear way?
• Is there an identifiable research question and a thesis statement ?
• Does the introduction offer an outline of the essay (a blueprint)?
• Do you lack any crucial information in the introduction?

If the writer has been instructed to base their introduction on the CARS model , consider the following as well:

• Does your Introduction follow CARS?

Readability

• Sentence level: Are there sentences that are difficult to follow?
• Paragraph level: Are there any paragraphs that are difficult to understand? Is the ordering of paragraphs good? What about topic sentences and development within each paragraph ?
• Are there any words that are overused or ‘flat’ in the sense that they do not add anything to the argument?
• Are there terms that need to be introduced?
• What about punctuation ?
• Are there any sentences that need to be rephrased - any comma splices (run-on sentences) or sentence fragments ?
• Highlight something in the introduction that is good and something that may need to be clarified/developed.
• What have you learned and in what way has your own project developed from peer reviewing Introductions?

Peer reviewing paragraphs

For information about paragraph writing, see

Revise paragraphs for structure and argument

The following exercise works well as a peer-review exercise of some part of a text, and you can also use it to check your own work-in-progress texts.

• Read through the paragraph. Does it contain a clear topic sentence and some development in the form of supporting sentences? If not, how can the paragraph structure be strengthened?
• If any sources have been used, is it clear to the reader what parts of the paragraph refer to the source(s) and what parts are the writer’s own thoughts and words? If needed, how can the writer’s voice be strengthened and how can the reference(s) to other people’s thoughts be made more clear?

Revise a paragraph at sentence level

Read through the paragraph and then consider it from the following perspectives:

• Is the sentence structure awkward?
• Are you trying to say too much in one sentence?
• Are the sentences in your paragraph not in a logical order?
• Sentence structure variety: Are any successive sentences structured in exactly the same way (for instance are there several sentences in a row starting with subject + verb or with a prepositional phrase)? If that is the case, try to see if you can rephrase in order to create variety.
• Choice of words: Are there any words in the paragraph that might need revision (meaning / phrasing / form)? Is there unnecessary repetition?
• Style and language: Are there any language errors (subject-verb agreement, spelling, genitive case, capitalization, unclear use of pronouns)? What about style (contracted forms, informal words/phrases, jargon/pompous language)?

Peer reviewing work-in-progress texts

Peer reviewing is useful throughout the writing process. Use the following questions as starting points for peer discussions of work in progress. Remember that the texts you read are not finished texts; your task as a peer reviewer is to help the writer sharpen her or his argument and improve her or his text. Importantly, by reviewing other writers’ texts, you will train your own analytical abilities and you will encounter different ways of structuring a paper, of presenting facts and arguments, etc.

The following starting points are not detailed instructions but a list of issues that are important to consider throughout the writing process.

Big-picture concerns

• Argument: Is the argument clearly stated or does the writer need to provide more information or develop his/her argument in some direction?
• Overall level (is the overall structure clear to you as a reader?)
• Section level (do the sections follow in a logical sequence and are there informative headings and transitions between sections?)
• Paragraph level (what about topic sentences, for instance?)
• Evidence: Does the writer back up their claims?
• Will the writer need to find more evidence / sources to substantiate their claims?
• How are sources used?
• Does the writer follow the stipulated reference style?

Local concerns

• Does the writer use effective transitions between paragraphs or does the text consist of separate chunks of text? If the latter, highlight gaps where transitional devices are needed.
• Word choice (any terms than need to be explained or defined / any jargon or unnecessary words?)
• Spelling mistakes / grammatical mistakes?
• Punctuation issues?
• What is the greatest strength of the draft you have read?
• What does the writer need to work on?
• What have you learned and in what way has your own project developed from peer reviewing?

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections

How to Write a Peer Review

When you write a peer review for a manuscript, what should you include in your comments? What should you leave out? And how should the review be formatted?

This guide provides quick tips for writing and organizing your reviewer report.

Review Outline

Use an outline for your reviewer report so it’s easy for the editors and author to follow. This will also help you keep your comments organized.

Think about structuring your review like an inverted pyramid. Put the most important information at the top, followed by details and examples in the center, and any additional points at the very bottom.

Here’s how your outline might look:

1. Summary of the research and your overall impression

In your own words, summarize what the manuscript claims to report. This shows the editor how you interpreted the manuscript and will highlight any major differences in perspective between you and the other reviewers. Give an overview of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses. Think about this as your “take-home” message for the editors. End this section with your recommended course of action.

2. Discussion of specific areas for improvement

It’s helpful to divide this section into two parts: one for major issues and one for minor issues. Within each section, you can talk about the biggest issues first or go systematically figure-by-figure or claim-by-claim. Number each item so that your points are easy to follow (this will also make it easier for the authors to respond to each point). Refer to specific lines, pages, sections, or figure and table numbers so the authors (and editors) know exactly what you’re talking about.

Major vs. minor issues

What’s the difference between a major and minor issue? Major issues should consist of the essential points the authors need to address before the manuscript can proceed. Make sure you focus on what is  fundamental for the current study . In other words, it’s not helpful to recommend additional work that would be considered the “next step” in the study. Minor issues are still important but typically will not affect the overall conclusions of the manuscript. Here are some examples of what would might go in the “minor” category:

• Missing references (but depending on what is missing, this could also be a major issue)
• Technical clarifications (e.g., the authors should clarify how a reagent works)
• Data presentation (e.g., the authors should present p-values differently)
• Typos, spelling, grammar, and phrasing issues

3. Any other points

Confidential comments for the editors.

Some journals have a space for reviewers to enter confidential comments about the manuscript. Use this space to mention concerns about the submission that you’d want the editors to consider before sharing your feedback with the authors, such as concerns about ethical guidelines or language quality. Any serious issues should be raised directly and immediately with the journal as well.

This section is also where you will disclose any potentially competing interests, and mention whether you’re willing to look at a revised version of the manuscript.

Do not use this space to critique the manuscript, since comments entered here will not be passed along to the authors.  If you’re not sure what should go in the confidential comments, read the reviewer instructions or check with the journal first before submitting your review. If you are reviewing for a journal that does not offer a space for confidential comments, consider writing to the editorial office directly with your concerns.

Get this outline in a template

Giving Feedback

Giving feedback is hard. Giving effective feedback can be even more challenging. Remember that your ultimate goal is to discuss what the authors would need to do in order to qualify for publication. The point is not to nitpick every piece of the manuscript. Your focus should be on providing constructive and critical feedback that the authors can use to improve their study.

If you’ve ever had your own work reviewed, you already know that it’s not always easy to receive feedback. Follow the golden rule: Write the type of review you’d want to receive if you were the author. Even if you decide not to identify yourself in the review, you should write comments that you would be comfortable signing your name to.

In your comments, use phrases like “ the authors’ discussion of X” instead of “ your discussion of X .” This will depersonalize the feedback and keep the focus on the manuscript instead of the authors.

General guidelines for effective feedback

• Justify your recommendation with concrete evidence and specific examples.
• Be specific so the authors know what they need to do to improve.
• Be thorough. This might be the only time you read the manuscript.
• Be professional and respectful. The authors will be reading these comments too.
• Remember to say what you liked about the manuscript!

Don’t

• Recommend additional experiments or  unnecessary elements that are out of scope for the study or for the journal criteria.
• Tell the authors exactly how to revise their manuscript—you don’t need to do their work for them.
• Use the review to promote your own research or hypotheses.
• Focus on typos and grammar. If the manuscript needs significant editing for language and writing quality, just mention this in your comments.
• Submit your review without proofreading it and checking everything one more time.

Before and After: Sample Reviewer Comments

Keeping in mind the guidelines above, how do you put your thoughts into words? Here are some sample “before” and “after” reviewer comments

✗ Before

“The authors appear to have no idea what they are talking about. I don’t think they have read any of the literature on this topic.”

✓ After

“The study fails to address how the findings relate to previous research in this area. The authors should rewrite their Introduction and Discussion to reference the related literature, especially recently published work such as Darwin et al.”

“The writing is so bad, it is practically unreadable. I could barely bring myself to finish it.”

“While the study appears to be sound, the language is unclear, making it difficult to follow. I advise the authors work with a writing coach or copyeditor to improve the flow and readability of the text.”

“It’s obvious that this type of experiment should have been included. I have no idea why the authors didn’t use it. This is a big mistake.”

“The authors are off to a good start, however, this study requires additional experiments, particularly [type of experiment]. Alternatively, the authors should include more information that clarifies and justifies their choice of methods.”

Suggested Language for Tricky Situations

You might find yourself in a situation where you’re not sure how to explain the problem or provide feedback in a constructive and respectful way. Here is some suggested language for common issues you might experience.

What you think : The manuscript is fatally flawed. What you could say: “The study does not appear to be sound” or “the authors have missed something crucial”.

What you think : You don’t completely understand the manuscript. What you could say : “The authors should clarify the following sections to avoid confusion…”

What you think : The technical details don’t make sense. What you could say : “The technical details should be expanded and clarified to ensure that readers understand exactly what the researchers studied.”

What you think: The writing is terrible. What you could say : “The authors should revise the language to improve readability.”

What you think : The authors have over-interpreted the findings. What you could say : “The authors aim to demonstrate [XYZ], however, the data does not fully support this conclusion. Specifically…”

What does a good review look like?

Check out the peer review examples at F1000 Research to see how other reviewers write up their reports and give constructive feedback to authors.

Time to Submit the Review!

Be sure you turn in your report on time. Need an extension? Tell the journal so that they know what to expect. If you need a lot of extra time, the journal might need to contact other reviewers or notify the author about the delay.

Tip: Building a relationship with an editor

You’ll be more likely to be asked to review again if you provide high-quality feedback and if you turn in the review on time. Especially if it’s your first review for a journal, it’s important to show that you are reliable. Prove yourself once and you’ll get asked to review again!

• Getting started as a reviewer
• Responding to an invitation
• Reading a manuscript
• Writing a peer review

The contents of the Peer Review Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

The contents of the Writing Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…

"Culture and morale changed overnight! In under 2 months, we’ve had over 2,000 kudos sent and 80%+ engagement across all employees."

President at M&H

Recognition and Rewards all inside Slack or Microsoft Teams

Free To Try. No Credit Card Required.

Celebrate wins together and regularly for all to see

Redeem coins for gift cards, company rewards & donations

Start a weekly recognition habit with automatic reminders

Automatically celebrate birthdays and work anniversaries

10x your response rate, instantly with surveys inside Slack/Teams

Gather continuous, real-time feedback and insights

Discover insights from recognition

Have questions? Send us a message

How teams are building culture with employee recognition and rewards

Advice and answers from the Matter team

Helpful videos to fully experience Matter

9 Examples of Peer Feedback Questions

Table of Contents:

• What do I do well now, and what can I improve on in the future?
• Do you think I interact enough with my team members?
• How can I better support you in your work?
• What skills can I improve to be a better employee?
• Can you provide a specific example of an area in which I excel?
• Can you provide a specific example of an area in which I can improve?
• What sets me apart from other team members?
• Have you noticed any gaps in my professionalism?
• Do you have any additional feedback?

Our best thoughts and ideas can often come from peer feedback . While a performance review can often allow us to self-reflect on our own performance, they can also be incredibly stressful and intimidating. That's why peer feedback sessions are so important.

As a team member, how do you ask for peer feedback? Today we'll be covering 9 peer feedback questions you can ask your fellow peer.

By asking these review questions to a peer, you should be able to have a better idea of how you're doing as an employee, and also have a better idea of how to improve yourself as a worker.

1. What do I do well now, and what can I improve on in the future?

This question is an important one to ask early on in a peer feedback session, as it's meant to be a very general self-evaluation question that directly asks your peer how they think you are performing. It allows your peer to be honest and up-front about your performance, hopefully give you effective and meaningful feedback , and will help set the tone for the rest of the peer review.

2. Do you think I interact enough with my team members?

As your fellow coworker, your peer reviewer might be able to notice patterns with who you collaborate best with at work and who you don't necessarily get along with as well. This question may prove valuable as another person's perspective may help you realize which peers you have a lower engagement with as well.

3. How can I better support you in your work?

A peer review session is not just about improving yourself; it's also about improving the relationship between yourself and your peer. This question shows that you care about your peer and that you're able to help them achieve their goals while performing their own duties.

4. What skills can I improve to be a better employee?

Sometimes our peers may notice gaps we didn't even know existed! Being aware of your own skill gaps will help you to better understand how to improve in these areas, and can prove to be very valuable feedback.

5. Can you provide a specific example of an area in which I excel?

Often, we focus on what we can improve, not realizing that maybe what is seen as a flaw to us is actually something highly valued by our peer and the company. So it's important to take note of the skills and behaviors your peer values and wants you to continue doing!

6. Can you provide a specific example of an area in which I can improve?

Just because we've been told we do something well doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get better. This peer feedback question allows your peer to provide some guidance on where they see room for improvement within the company or yourself personally. It will also provide you with the chance to ask additional questions on how to improve in these areas.

7. What sets me apart from other team members?

As a peer review session is not just about improving ourselves, it's also about understanding how we can support our peers in a way that nobody else can. This peer feedback question helps us understand what strengths we have that make us unique and provide value to the company.

8. Have you noticed any gaps in my professionalism?

It's important to always be conscious of your workplace behavior! This peer feedback question will allow your peer to identify any gaps they see within your performance at work (i.e., timeliness, dress code etc.), or even extra-curricular behavior (i.e., arriving late, taking personal phone calls etc.). While this can sometimes be tough to hear, remember that constructive feedback is meant to better improve yourself as an employee.

9. Do you have any additional feedback?

The peer review session is a time for your peer to be open and honest about what they think of you as a peer! This open ended question will help them feel comfortable telling you anything else they feel the need to say before ending the feedback process.

Now it's time for you to ask your peers these 9 peer feedback questions! And while these are excellent sample questions, it's also fine to create new questions as well to ask. Ask for peer feedback today and get some valuable insight into how well your peers see you working within the company, and where there might be an opportunity for improvement that would benefit both yourself and your team. Best of luck in utilizing this peer feedback strategy in helping improve within your role at work!

For more information, feel free to take a look at our comprehensive guide to peer feedback . And if you got anything of value out of this article then consider trying out Matter, a free Slack app that allows for peers to give one another Kudos and constructive criticism. Try it out today for free.

Start Employee Recognition, Rewards, & Surveys

Recognition, Rewards & Surveys all in Slack or Teams