Peer review is the reading and critique of various aspects of a peer’s paper. Peer review is often conducted between two people of equal educational levels. Thus, the cornerstones of successful peer review are positive comments as well as constructive comments.
Firstly, the peer-review process starts with the analysis of the author’s thesis statement. The thesis statement provides the main idea that the author will focus on throughout the essay. Even in a refutation paper, the main thesis statement would serve as the main idea to refute a popular idea. The thesis statement is often found as the last sentence of the first paragraph. Next, the main ideas of each paragraph are taken into consideration. The peer will then tie back the main ideas of each paragraph to the thesis statement. The ideal essay would see the main ideas as closely as possible to support the thesis statement.
Secondly, the examination of evidence. Consistency is key. The evidence provides the author with information as well as statistics to back up their claims. The peer will examine the author’s evidence based on how relevant the evidence is to the theme of a paragraph. If the evidence is relevant, the peer will then examine the author’s interpretation of the evidence in the context of the paragraph. The peer will also analyze how the evidence supports or refute the thesis statement to make sure there would be no inconsistency.
Next, the peer will analyze the author’s language toward the intended audience. This is a more minor aspect of peer review. The level of scientific literacy differs between journals aimed toward scientists and articles in popular magazines. Thus, it is crucial for the peer to ensure that the language is appropriate toward the intended audience.
The final critique comes in the form of constructive comments on how the author could improve the paper. Perhaps it is readability, perhaps it is the transition between one paragraph to another. The peer’s role in this process is to ensure ideas from one paragraph connect to another to provide a comprehensive paper. Thus, this is also the part in which the peer also criticizes the paper as a whole.
