In this amusing guide to peer review, author Richard Straub outlines some very useful tips for the complete and thoughtful review of another person's writing. Straub outlines some ideas for what (and what not) to do when reading another writer's paper, in particular, emphasizing thoughtful comments over hasty, abbreviated criticism. He tells the reader to praise and critique in equal measure so as to not seem harsh. He also says to not be ambiguous--instead, he says to point the writer in a specific direction while avoiding telling them exactly how to fix the paper. He says that the reader should take into account several factors when reading and providing comments: the nature of the assignment, the goals of the paper, the author's particular style, and even the draft stage of the paper. Straub even goes so far as to suggest where the reader should write their comments so as not to seem invasive. Finally, Straub gives an example of a student's comments on his classmate's paper and shows how thoughtful comments can be given to good effect. He critiques the commentator and shows how he might have done a better job, but highlights how the comments given will lead the writer in the right direction on the next draft.
I really thought Straub did a great job in engaging the reader of this article through the use of humor and examples. I happen to respond very favorably to humor in writing, so his conversational style appealed to me a great deal. I really liked how he reprinted the comments on an actual paper and evaluated the reviewer's comments; Straub didn't feel it to be a flawlessly done review, but he highlighted several of the more thoughtful comments and how they would effectively steer the writer in the right direction. This gave me a better idea of what to do than just telling me how to do it. I find I learn more from seeing real examples rather than being given a list of directions. I do believe that Straub made it clear for the readers of this article how important it is to consider everything about the paper and focus more on content as opposed to structure. I feel that it's more important to get the idea right first and worry about picky things like grammar later, though I know that some teachers have often only valued the structure and syntax because it's easier to grade papers based on those criteria.
"First, don't set out to seek and destroy all errors and problems in the writing....You're not the writer. You're the reader. One of many. [The writer] is in charge of what she does to her writing. That doesn't mean you can't make suggestions."
I really liked this line because it hinted at some of my own tendencies when I review papers for my peers. I attempt to rewrite parts for them, probably out of a desire to help them succeed, but Straub makes a good point. I am NOT the writer and it is NOT my responsibility to fix the paper. I do not have the control here; the writer does, and I'm not afraid to say that that is hard for me to not have the control. I have to remind myself of what Straub is saying here: my responsibility is to steer the writer in the direction of improvement where the paper is concerned, and my comments should to that WITHOUT rewriting bits for them. I have always had trouble with this and I will attempt to apply Straub's suggestions while trying to still be helpful.
No comments:
Post a Comment