Skip to main content

Peer reviewing creative 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 creative writing?

When reviewing a work of creative writing - whether a poem, short story, an extract of a long-form work*, creative non-fiction, lyric essay - there are specific things to look out for. You are not expected to correct the work, but rather provide feedback on how it ought to be revised before it meets its audience. Here are recommended areas for you to approach assessing the work and what to provide feedback on.


* If the piece is an extract from a longer work such as novel, suggestions for revisions and edits might not be appropriate. In this case think more about the size and scope of the extract and whether this needs to be shifted or changed to make it most effective for the reader.

Premise and Concept 

Consider the overall aim and motivation of the work and whether it succeeds in this. Is the premise and concept clear and coherent? The work itself might be experimental or deliberately abstract, but is the idea coherent and executed accordingly?

Communication with Audience

You should consider and comment on how the work communicates with the audience. Remember, you are the reader before it gets to the target audience, so considering how the work has or hasn’t affected you is important. You can comment on whether the humour or provocation (for example) are effective and whether these need drawing out. However, try not to confuse the reflection of your experience with your particular taste. Be objective.

Clarity of Language and Appropriate Style

You should consider and offer feedback on whether the style of the writing is effective. Rather than getting too involved in picking apart or ‘fixing’ words and phrases, highlight any areas where the writing style or specific phrasing is working against the success of the work (is it slowing it down? muddying clarity? is it disrupting the tone?) To support this, offer examples of where the command of style is strong and supports the premise of the work. 

Structure and plotting (prose fiction and creative non-fiction)

This is often where a work of creative writing needs brave revisions so be supportive in how it could improve the work. Tightening the structure often requires cutting, so look out for where a story starts and ‘drops the reader off’ at. Should this be adapted for effect and impact? Also, consider if there are inconsistencies or deviations in the plot? (This often happens because the storyline was developed as it was written, and the writer needs someone to point this out.)

Structure and Form (poetry)

Poetry almost always needs trimming and cutting to serve the form and voice most effectively. Offer examples of where this could be most effective and be supportive in encouraging this process, as it can unnerve a new writer. Consider how the logic of the form serves the idea and whether lines are extraneous and would improve the poem by being taken out.

Typographical Corrections

While you are not expected to proof or closely edit the work, you can say if this is an area that needs attention.

Reinforcement and Supportive Approach

Do highlight and offer support on aspects of the work that are successful. Try not to isolate particular phrases and say how good they are (e.g., ‘This sentence is amazing!’) as this can lead an emerging writer to avoid brave and necessary editing in order to preserve specific sentences. Rather offer examples of what’s working.


Remember... 
If the submission is severely lacking in every element listed above, it is quite OK to suggest the work is not selected for publication this time, and that the writer might want to try again with a new work for another issue, or to revise the work substantially for re-submission.

 

[The above was adapted from guidance provided by the University of Essex LiFTS Department. Thank you to Holly Pester and her colleagues.]

Making your recommendation:

Making a recommendation for a submission can be difficult and requires some judgement. Please pay close attention to the peer reviewing guidance to help maintain objectivity. 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, as different creative writing pieces can have vastly different criteria for being effective. Below are some examples for what to recommend for submissions.

Accept with minor revisions:

  • The submission has no/few issues. The only corrections include easy to rectify issues, such as correcting grammar mistakes, or rewording sentences to make them more concise/accurate. The overall structure is coherent and the premise is sound.

Accept with major revisions: 

  • The submission has many, easy to rectify issues, such as correcting grammatical mistakes or rewording statements. The overall structure is coherent and the premise is sound.
  • The submission has issues with its overall structure making it hard to follow what is trying to be communicated. The premise seems sound so the piece could be rewritten to make it clearer.
  • The submission has issues with core premise or concept it is trying to communicate. It is either unclear what is being communicated, or fails to communicate the message based on the choice of format. The piece could be reworked to be made 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 be original and coherent throughout.
  • If a submission is unintelligible.
  • If a completely different format would be more appropriate for the submission and the premises it is trying to communicate.

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.