Peer review - how to do it right (MUST READ)

...or not, because it's just a post like all the others.

If you made up your mind, then here you go. First things first – I am copy-pasting some parts of this post because this is what you do in the era of technology – but the idea is original. Swear. That’s what matters right? At the end of the day I am doing this for a good purpose. At the very very last end of the day everything is a copy of a copy of a copy. Even this sentence is a copy.

So during these last few weeks, we have dealt with a lot of presentations in class, be it our own or our friend’s. Be it on this subject or on any other. In most of them we were invited by our professors to comment on, praise them or suggest our friends how to do better. This is why I am coming up with a list of attitudes we should get in order for our comments to really be worth saying, and help the other.

1) Be professional. This is a core part of your job as an academic. You help and want to be helped. During all of your life you will have to deal with comments on your work. You might as well learn to do yours like a pro. It shows both that you are part of the academy and willing to engage in the interplay that makes the profession work.

2) Be pleasant. If the presentation is truly awful, suggest a reject but don't engage in ad hominem remarks. Rejection should be a positive experience for all. Don't say things in a peer review that you would not say to the person's face in a presentation or in a bar after a conference. I have done this before, and it really felt bad afterwards, even though it was true that didn’t like the other presentations. Or was I mad I didn’t get the validation in mine? Either way, experience talking here.

3) Be helpful. Suggest how to overcome the shortcomings you identify. It's the easiest thing in the world to poke holes in something. It is usually much harder to suggest how to fix them. A review is more than a suggestion to revise, reject or accept. It should be meaningful. It should guide your colleagues on what is good and what is not so good as you see it. If it's too short, then it probably isn't going to do that. So be loquacious. Explain what is going on in your thinking. Suggest alternative approaches.

4) Be scientific. Your role is that of a scientific peer. It is not that of an editor in either the proofreading or decision-making sense, even though grammatical mistakes suffocate me it’s so hard to act blind. But I feel it is best to fall back on making a review with editorial and typographic issues. Concentrate rather on showing the added value of your scientific knowledge and not so much on missing commas etc. If as part of your revision you think that the presentation should be professionally proof edited, then say so. (btw if you know someone who needs an editor, let them know about my existence, please) The presentation is not about style but substance, unless the very bad style gets in the way. Sometimes it hurts. Me. It’s the OCD.

5) Be realistic. Be realistic about the work presented, changes you suggest and your role. You as a reviewer are part of the process. You don't have final say on the determination of the presentation. Sometimes this overriding is because the bar being set by you is too high for that presentation, but keep your feet on the ground.

6) Be empathetic. Think of the best review you have gotten in terms of guiding a presentation forward. Then think of the worst. Which would you rather get on average? Then put yourself into the shoes of the student whose presentation you are commenting on. Where along the scale will your comment fall? What goes around comes around and therefore ensuring that your reviews are scientific, helpful and courteous is a good idea.

7) Be organised. To review means communicating. It therefore requires structure and a logical flow. It is not possible to critique a presentation for logical holes, grammatical howlers, poor structure etc. if your critique is itself rife with these flaws. Think before commenting, then rethink. At the start, give a brief one or two sentence overview of your review. Then give feedback on the following: structure, the quality of data sources and methods used, specific issues required by the project theme, logical flow of argument (or lack thereof), and validity of conclusions drawn. Then comment on style, voice and lexical concerns and choices, giving suggestions on how to improve.

7.Stopping here because the coolest things in the universe are 7.

And as always, thanks for reading. Busy lives we’re living! ♥