Peer Review Strengths And Weaknesses

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

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.

For this paper I chose to look for a peer review study that I could relate to. There are a lot of things that we grow up around and don 't really notice the impact that happens around us. I am a science major in college so I have been doing experiments a long time. After reading this study I was very intrigued about how they conducted and executed their experiment in this study. I the article I read was “ An Avenue for Challenging Sexism: Examining the High School Sociology Classroom.” This article was very interesting to me. I went to a small school so we didn 't have sociology classes. It is very interesting to see their approach to teaching about gender. In this paper I will be examining the purpose and goal of this article.

See id. Peer review is used to review the qualifications and credentials of health care providers to determine whether they may practice in a particular hospital and, if so, under what parameters. Peer review, in this regard, is also a critical part of the determination that a physician or other health care provider should not be allowed to practice, in whole or in part.

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:

Hitherto, over millions of articles and paper about research have been published into journal annually. In order for a paper to get published or an article to be documented, researchers tend to present their research findings and results to journal. They further sends the paper out to be assessed based on competency, implication, and originality through autonomous qualified experts who are conducting research and publishing work on the same field. This results must be reviewed by peers in order to attain credibility. This paper identifies a number of sources that clarify the connection between credibility and peer review.

To start my peer review process I read my peers work. After I read their work, I go back and read each paragraph individually. Sometimes it is easy to see what needs work, such as finding fragments and grammar errors. Other times, I have to look hard to find errors in my peers work because each student in my class is already a great writer. After making suggested edits throughout the paper, I always complete my revision with an overall comment at the bottom of the page. From there, I give a constructive list of different aspects of the paper that might need revision.

My past with peer review has never been the best. In fact, my past with peer review has, once again, crippled me in my writing process. I can't start talking about my past with peer review without going back to my home life. To make a mistake in your writing was like being the driving force behind a terrorist attack. I was constantly ridiculed by my parents for my lack of writing skills. It made writing, not only a chore in my subconscious, but a fearful task that made writing seem like it should always be perfect the first try. If it wasn't right the first time, it will never be right. Yes, a very unmotivated and judgmental environment to say the least. This heavily affected my outlook on peer review, causing me to be fearful of feedback from

In your own words, identify points in the peer review cycle that seem especially important and explain why.

In Neubert and McNelis "Peer Response" it was concluded that feedback is kept in the minds of the students when revising their writing. The feedback givin by their peer is subconciouslly stored inside their minds resulting in them keeping a sharp lookout for said mistakes or improvements. In order for something like this to be effective, the givin advise by the peer has to be specific and well thougth out otherwise the student won't know what needs improvents. I have gotten plenty of bad advise during my high school years. The feedback isn't negative, but quick compliments such as "its okay" or "good use of commentary," this kind of feedback won't help improve my writing skills. This is the sort of feedback I have been reiceiving isn't effective

My understanding and experience with peer review is that peer review is to give constructive feedback to the writer in regards to the topic. Constructive feedback may include sentence structures, grammatical errors, and how well each topic is presented and if the topic is relevant in the essay. The important ideas to me from this article would be under the “What Are Your Goals?” section where it emphasizes that a reader is simply a reader. The reader is not an editor, teacher, or the writer. The reader is a reader that provides constructive feedback by “pointing out problems, asking questions, offering advice, and wondering out loud with the writer about her ideas.” This is extremely crucial to me as a plethora of my past essays were required

Peer reviewing is a framework that is utilized by researchers to choose which research results ought to be distributed in scientific journals. Peer reviewing subject the logical examination papers to free investigation by other qualified experimental specialists, called peers, before they are published for the common people. More than one million exploratory research papers and articles are

How Effectively/Appropriately Am I Performing this/these Genre-Attempt(s): Have taken detailed peer review notes; make your peer-reviewer(s) go into troubleshooting detail on workshop days: Insist that they look for problems or flaws. Deal with more than sentence-level issues (grammar, punctuation, etc.), but do mention those if that’s an issue. Then, go beyond what the peer-reviewer(s) might have said. Write also a self-assessment. While I usually discourage writing a 5-paragraph essay, that might not be a bad strategy for completing this—and the previous—section. Whatever you mention, don’t be vague or general. Show that you’re working on providing a clearer context, using more businesslike diction, adhering to the conventions of

The publication of scientific work is critically important to scientific communication (Twaij et al. 2014). Scientists communicate their new research or studies to their audience by publishing their work in scholarly journals and books. People who are not from the area of expertise or are unfamiliar with the given topic must be able to trust in the credibility of published journal articles. A common process that controls the high quality of scientific publication is called ‘peer review’, which ensures that the published work has met the specific standards of a given discipline, a process that usually begins with a professional reviewing of an author’s article by a community of qualified experts before publication. The reviewers are usually chosen from relevant academic fields and in some cases, the authors are allowed to suggest names of their preferred peer reviewers (Bornmann 2011). The reviewer is responsible for identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the paper, giving constructive comments along with acceptance-revision-rejection decisions (Do 2003) to the author. More importantly, the peer review process makes a substantial contribution to determine whether the manuscript contains any “fatal” flaws (Brand 2012), such as plagiarism, duplicated research or even wrong science.

This concept has been in practice since 1665. During this time it was quite prominent with the Royal Society of London. The first ever peer-review is assumed to have been published for the Medical Essays and Observation. It was published in the year 1731, by Royal Society of Edinburg. For carrying out the task of peer review it is essential to consider the strength of the team members and the topic that has been proposed to be discussed in this process. Peer evaluation is quite essential as it helps the students or the team members to discuss with the project coordinator about the differences in the opinion. Projects form an