Peer Review

There are three levels of peer review as discussed in the following. Know which one you are supposed to be doing as the questions you ask of the author and yourself differ depending on the purpose. For our purposes you will be first two levels.
Comment: You read it to make sure there are no mechanical errors and that the writing is clear. Essentially you are a proofreader. You are ensuring primarily that you understand what the author is saying and not trying to be a subject matter expert. At the end of your
review, the author should know what was done well and what needs attention.
Correct: You are a subject matter expert and as such you are trying to ensure that everything presented is correct – facts are accurate, assumptions appropriate, and the two are logically related. Things may be missing but it is not your job at this level to find them.
What is there is both relevant and reliable but there may be more there. You probably will want to ask questions that focus on whether the implications and inferences are being
expressed with the correct degree of probability.
Collaborate: You, in essence, are the author’s partner. You are looking to fill subject matter gaps, to think of theories not thought of, to consider implications contrarily, to offer alternate inferences. Not only are you providing a different perspective, you are asking
the questions that challenge the author’s findings and promote new findings.

This entry was posted in Criminal Justice. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.