{"id":2688,"date":"2016-08-30T18:00:30","date_gmt":"2016-08-30T23:00:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.jsums.edu\/scholars\/?p=2688"},"modified":"2016-09-06T02:46:20","modified_gmt":"2016-09-06T07:46:20","slug":"suggestions-for-working-in-a-peer-review-team","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.jsums.edu\/scholars\/2016\/08\/30\/suggestions-for-working-in-a-peer-review-team\/","title":{"rendered":"Suggestions for Working in a Peer Review Team"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n\tThis post is written by Candis Pizzetta<\/strong>, Associate Vice President of Research & Scholarly Engagement and an associate professor of English at Jackson State University.  She also helms the Center for University Scholars.\n<\/p>\n

\n\tBelow are some suggestions for working in a Peer Review Team.  Keep in mind that these are suggestions and not requirements.\n<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n\t\tPositive Feedback:<\/strong>  <\/strong>Advise everyone to start positive with a compliment, then offer honest, but objective, well-supported and practical advice, and then conclude with another commendation.  Continuously reinforce the message that no one is served when criticism is withheld; only focused, writing-centered (not writer-centered) commentary will help the writer grow.\n\t<\/li>\n
  2. \n\t\tVary the Routine:<\/strong>  Sometimes you may choose to read part of a draft aloud to your group and other times you may email a writing sample a week ahead of time to give others a chance to read and critique before the next meeting.  You may share notes on a group member's draft but only discuss a small portion of the suggested changes.  Try holding a writing session every now and then: everyone comes to the group, writes for an hour, takes turns reading part or all of their resulting selection for 5-10 minutes, and then receives feedback of 1-2 minutes from each group member.\n\t<\/li>\n
  3. \n\t\tDo Your Homework:<\/b>  Establish expectations for feedback.  When you read the writing of other group members, take notes, write down questions, suggestions, and compliments.  Be specific when you critique, praising a vivid description in particular or recommending more explanation or clarification with detailed advice.  Also, be willing to take the critique to heart.  You are investing a great deal of time and energy into the process, so part of your homework is to be open to feedback.\n\t<\/li>\n
  4. \n\t\tAsk Questions:<\/strong>  Focus not on telling others what to do but on asking questions to help them<\/em> decide what to do.  If you don't understand something, or you feel that details are lacking, ask for an explanation or background information.  Then, gently advise the author to incorporate their response into the draft.\n\t<\/li>\n
  5. \n\t\tTake a Break:<\/strong>  At regular intervals, step back from the critiquing cycle to meet just to advise or brainstorm about how to organize notes, do research, or work on essay structure.  In other words, you can function as a Scholarly Writers' Accountability Group every now and then.  Several times a year, go to an event on campus or watch a movie together and then brainstorm on how you could connect that external event activity to your research.\n\t<\/li>\n
  6. \n\t\tCheck-In:<\/b>  Periodically evaluate how the group is doing.  Are your meetings too often, not often enough, or just right?  Too long, not long enough, or ideal?  Is someone missing too many meetings or wall-flowering, or does one person dominate the meetings?  Is everybody getting what they want out of the experience?\n\t<\/li>\n
  7. \n\t\tSet Boundaries from the Start:<\/strong>  What's the procedure when somebody's not fitting in?  What do you do when one or more members drop out, or one or more members feel like increasing the number of people in the group?  How do you recruit, and how do you decide whether to accept candidates?  Establish and review your membership policies.\n\t<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    \n\tAbove all, remember that although the group is a democratic body that should operate by consensus, you as the founder, must continue to moderate the proceedings and nudge everyone to always honor its principles and purposes.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    This post is written by Candis Pizzetta, Associate Vice President of Research & Scholarly Engagement and an associate professor of English at Jackson State University.  She also helms the Center for University Scholars. Below are some suggestions for working in a Peer Review Team.  Keep in mind that these are suggestions and not requirements. Positive […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":71,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jsums.edu\/scholars\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2688"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jsums.edu\/scholars\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jsums.edu\/scholars\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jsums.edu\/scholars\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/71"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jsums.edu\/scholars\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2688"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.jsums.edu\/scholars\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2688\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2788,"href":"https:\/\/www.jsums.edu\/scholars\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2688\/revisions\/2788"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.jsums.edu\/scholars\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2688"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jsums.edu\/scholars\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2688"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.jsums.edu\/scholars\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2688"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}