I actually had a really good time with the peer reviews. It was a little difficult compared in-person peer reviews because I felt like it would have been easier to comment on things right on the paper. It felt a little tedious to go back and forth between 2 tabs constantly to write about things that I wanted to compliment or critique. Besides that technical aspect of the peer reviews, I think that something I really enjoyed was looking at other people’s citations. Personally, I did not have enough time to complete my citations because I think that I was confused as to what style I needed to use…but now I am thinking that I should have probably used ASM. I noticed that the papers I reviewed wrote about their procedures in a really concise way – it wasn’t too long and it was also super clear. I think this is definitely something that I will be fixing on my paper. Something else I noticed was that a lot of people were a little repetitive in their introduction which is also something that I believe that I did on my paper. I will also be correcting this on my paper. I am looking forward to seeing how other people corrected or critiqued my methods/procedures. While I was writing my paper I was wondering if there was a more efficient way for me to conduct my experiments. I am hoping that people gave me a couple of ideas.
