Peer Review Process & Instructions

Peer review Instructions

  • Review Assignments: You may receive 2-4 review requests per Work project once you have submitted your own draft.
    The total requirement is 6 review requests distributed during the whole duration of the course.
    If by the end of the course you have received fewer than 6 review requests, please contact the teaching assistant.
    If you have received none or one review for your work, please ask the teaching assistant to find additional reviewers for you.
  • Annotations
    • 5 non-coded annotations: Include at least 5 non-coded annotations. Read your peers’ entire work and annotate it prior to completing the review comments and rating process. In other words, do your detailed analysis before your summary.
    • 15 coded annotations: In addition to non-coded annotations (for typos etc.), make at least 15 coded annotations per work that you review using annotation codes. The rubric has three-letter annotation codes for a number of evaluative criteria. Add to the three letters a “+” (if this is a strong point, a good example, etc.) or a “-“ (if this is a weaker point, a missed opportunity, or a point that could be improved). Be sure there is a good balance of annotations, positive “+” and critical“-“. Always include an explanation for the annotation. For example, “NAM-I don’t think you have defined this term as clearly as you could have. My suggested definition is…”, e.g. see image:
  • Viewing Annotations from your peers: Once you receive feedback from your peers, you must view the original version (the version you submitted for peer review) In order to see the annotations from your peers. (About this work => Versions).
  • Review Length and Ratings: Reviews should be 200 words or more in total for all the review criteria in each work and should include specific opportunities for improvement and areas of strength that don’t repeat, but support what you wrote in the annotations. Vary the scores across different works in order to highlight their differences. Unlike ride and house sharing, please do not give “five stars” scores on first version unless a work is absolutely superb. Providing constructive feedback is going to be the most helpful to the authors.
  • Review content: Be kind to peers in your reviews! Be as helpful as you can, offering them constructive suggestions. Feedback should be unique (not copy/pasted) and be directly relevant to the work under the review section. Comments must be tailored to a specific work. A peer review will typically involve 2-3 hours work.
  • Review Submission: Wait until you have completed all pending reviews before submitting them. More ideas might come to you while you review another work.
  • Review the Reviewer: Go to your Work in Creator => Feedback=> Reviews => Results =>Select a Reviewer =>Overall Feedback on Feedback. 200 words or more in total for all the review criteria for each review. Please maintain a constructive tone in your feedback-on-feedback.
  • Self-Review: Write your self-review work before you submit your revised work, using the same rubric as you did when reviewing your peers. In the text entry areas, reflect on how you feel your work aligns with the rubric AND how you applied your peers’ feedback. Which peer feedback did you apply and why? How did your thinking evolve from version to version? Write this self-review for the final version of your work that you are about to submit at Creator => Feedback => Reviews => Review Work.
  • Red Flags: Do not self-plagiarize, or copy work from updates or other courses. This must be new work. If you notice any problems with a work or the reviews you receive(e.g. plagiarism, offensive reviews), please inform the teaching assistant or instructor in the Confidential Feedback to Admin area in Feedback => Reviews.

Work Review Process