Peer reviewing academic writing

As a peer reviewer, you help to ensure that a submission is accurate and publishable by providing feedback on the substance and structure of what is written. You will be selected from our pool of peer reviewers based on the areas of interest and expertise you have listed on your Essex Student Journal profile. This enables you to provide an alternative expert opinion on the submission. 

The specifics on which you should focus will vary based upon the type of submission you review. For example, creative writing requires a different approach from academic writing and, within these areas, the different types of submission may prioritise elements differently.

Peer review is conducted by current Essex PGRs - you can volunteer online. When you have created your account, please login and go to your Profile to add your review interests.

The video below provides an overview of peer reviewing with the Essex Student Journal, including some essentials tips for reviewing effectively.

You can find more written guidance on how to peer review below, including differences between reviewing different submission types. If you have any questions or would like further guidance, please contact the Essex Student Journal Team.

What are you looking for when peer reviewing academic writing?

  • Content and argument: are the arguments robust based on the evidence provided? Does the content demonstrate scholarly vigour? Does the paper contribute something original? Bear in mind that a lot of these submissions will be adapted from undergraduate and PGT assignments, and so what constitutes "original contribution" may differ from PhD-level research. 

  • Structure and flow: do the sentences and paragraphs flow nicely into one and other? Is there a logical order to the arguments being made? Does the abstract reflect the contents? Does the introduction guide the reader through the upcoming content? Does the conclusion summarise the key discussion points? If the paper is hard to read or understand, it may benefit from being reorganised. Let the author know when their writing is hard to follow, goes on tangents, or seems to make illogical leaps.
     
  • Grammar: you are not expected to highlight every grammatical error - the Journal Editor will do this. However, if the any grammatical decisions are making the content confusing or easy to misunderstand, flag this to the author.
     
  • Subject area: does the submission follow the standards of the subject area? Are there any gaps in the literature that are undermining the strength of the arguments being made? Remember submissions typically come from undergraduate and PGT students, so the depth and breadth of the literature review may not reflect a traditional published article, however if there is something glaringly missing, or that might be useful to add, tell the author.
     
  • References: references should follow the Harvard style. If it is not clear that it is the author's opinion, claims should be referenced.

  • Figures and tables: do the figures and tables and other graphics support the arguments being made? Are they accurate? Are they the best format to convey the information? If not, provide suggestions for alternatives.

Leaving fair & effective comments:

  • Think about your mood. How you are feeling can influence how you assess a paper. Being angry is likely to make you more critical than if you are happy, for example. Bear this in mind and where possible review when you are in an appropriate mood for it.
     
  • Read the paper multiple times before submitting your review, ideally over the course of several days. This will help you approach it with fresh eyes and in different moods. Make comments on the document each time and respond to yourself, before synthesising a final comment for the author.
     
  • Aim to allow the author creative freedom to address your comments. This is not always possible depending on what you are highlighting to them but aim for to allow the author to respond in their own way where possible. This looks like comments like "Have you considered..." or "This would benefit from being expanded" rather than "You need to add [specific argument/reference/expert] here".
     
  • Be as specific as possible & explain your rationale. This can sometimes conflict with the previous tip, but giving the author specific feedback & explaining why rephrasing would benefit their writing helps them to improve more effectively. This looks like "[Claims] in [argument] could be strengthened by addressing [issues]" or "Removing this section would improve the flow of your work and make it easier to follow" rather than "You need to make stronger a argument" or "I think you need to remove this."

Addressing different submissions types:

The Journal accepts a variety of different types of submission. The most common are listed below with some pointers on what might be different when you are reviewing them.

Blog Posts

Blog posts tend to be shorter, less formal academic pieces. Whilst the language is less formal, and opinion can be expressed, claims that are not clearly opinion still need to be referenced. If in doubt of whether it is too informal, leave a comment for the Editorial Team to review.

Case Studies

Case studies are in-depth studies of a specific, real-world problem. Generally, a case study has one of three purposes:

  • Exploratory - looking for patterns, developing models, etc.
  • Descriptive - e.g. "what have been the effects of..."
  • Explanatory - tries to explain why or how something happens

Bear these purposes in mind when reviewing, and think about how effectively they are achieved.

Dissertations

Dissertations are in-depth explorations of a research question. They may have multiple sections, and include original data/research. Dissertations are typically the longest academic submissions we have, so take that into account when scheduling time to review and re-read the submission.

Essays

Essays are papers that give ideas based on reading, structured by the arguments/ideas being presented. The three main types include:

  • Descriptive - explaining a concept or situation
  • Argumentative - presenting an idea and then supporting and defending it
  • Comparison - comparing and contrasting two or more ideas/situations and evaluating

Bear these purposes in mind when reviewing, and think about how effectively it achieves them.

Research Papers

Research papers report research findings and are most common in Business, the Sciences, and Social Sciences. They tend to follow a fairly strict structure (although this can vary by discipline), typically:

  • Literature review
  • Methodology
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion

If you notice significant deviations from this structure (e.g. missing sections, content in the wrong section, etc.) flag it up.

Additional Support

The above guidelines will usually be sufficient to peer review most submissions. We sometimes accept submission types that do not fit the categories listed. If you are asked to review an alternative type of paper, it will either be similar enough to another category for you to be able to use the guidance here, or you will be given guidance specifically for the review.

If you have any questions about how to peer review a submission, please get in touch with the Journal Team.

Making your recommendation:

Making a recommendation for a submission can be difficult and requires some judgement. The Journal Editor will make the final decision on how to deal with a paper, but your recommendation helps inform their decision. Please be mindful of what type of submission you are reviewing when you make your recommendation; a blog post will have different reviewing criteria compared to an academic dissertation, for example. Below are the recommendations you can make, with example reasoning:

Accept with minor revisions:

  • The submission has no/few issues. The only corrections include easy to rectify issues, such as citing a claim, correcting grammatical mistakes, or rewording statements to make them more concise/accurate. The overall structure is coherent and the arguments being made are sound.

Accept with major revisions: 

  • The submission has many, easy to rectify issues, such as citing a claim, correcting grammar mistakes, or rewording statements. The overall structure is coherent and the arguments being made are sound.
  • The submission has issues with its overall structure making it hard to follow the arguments being made. The arguments seem sound so the piece could be rewritten to make them clearer.
  • The submission has issues with the arguments it is making. It doesn't back up its claims with references and/or makes dubious leaps in logic between premises and conclusions. With some reworking, holes in the arguments could be filled based on the current literature, making the piece coherent.

Reject: 

Where possible, avoid outright rejecting papers and make sure to suggest improvements. The Essex Student Journal is intended to be an educational tool, and so providing effective feedback helps both authors and reviewers improve their skills.

  • If a submission fails to make original, coherent arguments throughout.
  • If a submission is unintelligible.
  • If a submission falls outside of the scope of the journal.
  • If a completely different format would be more appropriate for the submission.

Peer review is conducted by current Essex PGRs - you can volunteer online. When you have created your account, please login and go to your Profile to add your review interests.

If you have any questions about how to peer review a submission, please get in touch with the Journal Team.