Example Of Peer Review

Peer review is more than just reading someone’s paper and tell them if it’s good or bad. It’s about explaining them what their weaknesses and strengths are. It can also help you as a writer by giving you ideas of how to put stuff together in your essay. Personally, I believe that I was really engaged when it came to peer reviewing. I truly appreciated the criticism and honesty of my peers and I hope that they feel the same way about me. I tried to explain to them what was wrong with each page step by step and what are some of their weaknesses and strengths.

You are right doing a peer review does ensure a better quality of work and allows for the writer to improve on the material being presented. In law enforcement having all work peer reviewed protect the writer from handing in documents that are filled with minimal to major mistakes. These mistakes if not identified can result in dismissal of a case or an acquittal at trial

As an American we have the right to exercise freedom of speech and I believe that freedom of speech is one of the most valuable rights we have, and I have not been able to exercise this right for the last 18 years of my life. I am most fortunate to be able to exercise this right in my English 1102 class during peer reviews. In my opinion, people learn best by teaching than they do by listening to the teacher and I believe peer reviews work the same way. When I was engaged in peer views, I learned more from my own writing than I ever have been reading my own reviews. I feel this is true because we are engaging in reading over another classmate’s paper, and offering our advice that could potentially improve their essays. For our first peer review our teacher gave us a list of guidelines to go by in order to do the most efficient job in peer review. It

I also have a process when I peer review papers. I make sure to always compliment the student’s paper and then I point out some areas where there may need some improvement. I always make sure to provide an example so they know what I am trying to say.

In The Everyday Writer, I strongly believed that chapter 10 “Reviewing & Revising” was most helpful as I could relate to some of its statements. I believed that by reviewing my work, I’m bound to discover mistakes. By doing so, I could make minor adjustment to my work. However, sometimes looking over my own work isn’t enough so, that’s where a peer reviewer comes in. A peer reviewer is someone who challenges your work. By doing so, they give me a strong sense of doubt as I tend to overlook certain areas yet, the peer reviewer that I came across didn’t really help.

I need my paper to be easy to read, so I applied all these tools. The more I revised my writing, the more grammatical errors I corrected. After the first draft correction, I learn there were words I took for granted and used them in my essay that had a completely different meaning. I made generalized statements and did not attach much evidence to support most of the claims I noted in my writing. To improve my writing, I search the Internet to note other people’s remarks about these essays. Since I did not want to be embarrassed in front of my classmate for use of grammar, I had to read more to write more clearly. I did not like the peer review because it will allow my classmates to see my grammatical errors and would think of me to be a horrible English language person. But because of these peer reviews, I tried to make my text simple so that everyone could read and understand my writing.

Without having someone else to look over your work, it is hard to realize what you are doing wrong. When someone else reads your paper, especially having not read it before, they can easily identify your mistakes, whether it be punctuation or spelling errors. I strongly believe that when peer review is taken advantage of and used correctly, peer reviews are extremely helpful, but, unfortunately not everyone takes it serious and gives you the feedback that can really help you fix your essay.

The author of “Be Sure You're Right, Then Go Ahead”: The Davy Crockett Gun Craze is by Sarah Nilsen. The purpose of the article is to give detail of how Davy Crockett became the emblem that was known for guns and coon skin hats. The author does not specifically identify the purpose of the article. The purpose is well stated in the detail given about how the legend became a legend and what part Walt Disney played in it. The war, families, television shows, toy makers, and any other company that could profit from Davy Crockett and The Wild Frontier played a major role in making Davy such a legend.

This is a reflection of my essay from module four where we did a peer review and feedback on our essay. I found this to be a really helpful and great assignment. It gave us an opportunity to have a peer doing the same type of essay give an outside view point. The feedback that I took into consideration from my peer was very valuable. I did not have a strong enough opposing viewpoint providing a negative view on censorship or a positive view of free speech. This was very good feedback and I feel that my peer definitely took the time to break down my essay and gave a great review. This was such an important part of the persuasive essay that the need to make sure I had a strong counter argument was important.

Casey, A., & Goldman, E. (2010). Enhancing the Ability to Think Strategically: A learning model. Management Learning, 41, 167–185.

Likewise, the peer revision process was the calling out process I had grown accustomed to while playing lacrosse. I would read through all of the peer reviewers papers ensuring that the paper flowed well from paragraph to paragraph through relative context and use of transitions. I also focused on the unity of each paragraph and the paper as a whole. I always included ideas that the author could expand on throughout his drafts so that it would be easier for him to reach his required word count.

"Young Children's Weight Trajectories and Associated Risk Factors: Results From the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Birth Cohort"

Over the past 15 years, I have been involved in curriculum development, assessment and accreditation processes at various levels in higher education. As a higher education administrator, I also have been involved in supporting institutions with state, association, and regional accreditation processes. The Peer Reviewer opportunity would allow me to share my years of experience as a higher education administrator leading various processes.

What frightens me about a class that includes peer reviewing is not me reviewing others’ papers, but rather, their reviews of me. Because of this, I did not try to be too strict or too easy, and I tried to guide to guide my fellow peers along with questions instead of telling them a certain way would be better. At the beginning of my process in reviewing my peers’ papers, I decided it would be helpful to point out mostly grammar mistakes and syntax. For example, in John Silva’s essay, “A Fool with Good Intentions,” most of my focus was on correcting grammar although I briefly mentioned structure and meaning suggestions. The main criticism I had was that:

As advancements are made in science and technology that relates to the care of patients, it is critical for nurses to be aware of the treatments that have been proven to be evidence-based. Systematic research reviews (SRR) are considered to have the highest ranking or level of evidence falling under level 1 evidence for reliability, validity, and least amount of error (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2015, p.607). The aim of this paper is to critique the chosen SRR related to core temperature obtainment in children, relevance of the research problem to nursing practice, rigor of the research found in the SRR to include levels of evidence and designs of included studies, the clarity of findings, summarized findings in the SRR, and the implications for practice.