Writing a (final) paper can be a solitary activity. Sometimes, you can get stuck and you will need some feedback on your work. Even if you're not stuck, feedback can help you gain more insight. You can request feedback from your supervisor, but also from your fellow students. The first type of feedback is called expert feedback; the second is called peer review. When peer reviewing, students give each other feedback on their work. Peer review can be one-on-one, but it can also be in a group of students.

Peer review in academia

Peer review is also called peer evaluation. In academia, giving and receiving peer review is a common part of the profession. Studies are rarely published without peer review. As an academic, you are expected to regularly review research proposals, articles or book manuscripts from others.

Academic peer review is aimed at assessing the quality of the proposed research and its feasibility (in the case of peer review of a research proposal) or the quality of the manuscript (in the case of a submitted essay or book manuscript) and on refining the content of the research in order to advance the scientific debate. The fellow scientist indicates points for improvement without offering specific solutions. The recipient states in a written response whether he / she accepts the criticism. If not, the recipient explains why not. If the recipient accepts he / she will develop the points for improvement at his / her own discretion.

Peer review in the study programme

The purpose of peer review in education is to strengthen the mutual learning process and to improve your assignments.
Expert review in education is primarily aimed at supporting the student in his or her learning process. The role of the expert will vary from the scientific peer reviewer who only provides directions for improvement, to the teacher who sometimes provides concrete suggestions for improvement down to word level.

There are blind and open peer reviews. In a blind review, author and reviewer do not know each other, in an open review they do know each other and they enter into a dialogue with the aim of learning. This is the form we use in Art History.

Pros

Peer review has some important pros. The first is that you receive extra feedback as an author. Multiple readers will observe more points of improvement. If you have processed this feedback and have offered the revised version to the expert for feedback, the expert will receive a project of a higher level and can add new feedback to that level. This brings your paper to a higher level than without peer review.

Another advantage is that students often know what kind of questions their fellow students still have. This way, fewer questions or problems remain unresolved. Peer review also gives you insight into where you stand compared to other students. You will see that this motivates you to improve your work. Furthermore, giving feedback is also informative because it forces you to think about why a text is not yet good enough and to formulate its issues clearly. Feedback should always be concrete. You can use the insights gained through peer reviewing other's work in your own work.

Finally, students often experience feedback from their fellow students as more critical than feedback from the expert. That's good, because feedback is always subjective. You must indicate which feedback you accept and which feedback you do not and why. This makes your fellow students feel responsible for giving quality feedback.

Organizing peer review

Peer review must be well organized. Both the process and the content must be agreed upon in advance.

When organizing the process, you must establish:

who does what
when it should be ready
when will the peer review be discussed or submitted
where will the peer review take place
the number of times the peer review will take place

Organizing the content involves testing the project against the requirements set out in the assignment. The assessment form can serve as a guideline.

for example, in the first round of the peer review, the subject, the research objective(s) and/or the research question can be subject to feedback. In this way, you can focus on the right aspects step-by-step
in a peer review round, you can also choose to focus on the 'higher order concerns' such as structure, the research question as the common thread throughout the research, the relationship of the article to the theme of the collection in which the article will be published (see Abstract), adequate alignment with the target audience, are there sufficient examples and/or explanations, etcetera
the next round can then be about the 'lower order concerns' such as spelling, punctuation, sentence structure and word choice. Consult Writing tips.

If you do not want to review in different rounds but prefer to submit your comments in one go, you can structure the feedback according to the above degrees of importance. Another option is to follow the line of the article to be reviewed. Comments from high and low order concerns will then intermingle because the structure of the text determines the order of the comments.

Approach

A possible roadmap for the peer review round is:

participants submit their work (digitally) before the agreed upon deadline
projects are then read by the peers and provided with written feedback. Peers add their comments to the text or add a separate text at the end of the work. They submit this feedback (digitally) before the agreed upon deadline. Those who do not submit feedback will not receive any feedback in return and will be excluded from the peer review
participants read the received feedback
feedback is discussed in a meeting: it is important that the feedback given is understood correctly, to this end you can ask any questions during this meeting. You then tell your reviewer(s) if you will or will not process specific feedback and why. The expert is present at this meeting
participants process the feedback and submit the new version (digitally) to the expert before the agreed upon deadline. The peer review must be fully completed before the professor gives feedback
the expert gives their feedback digitally or in a meeting
if necessary, participants process the feedback again.

Then a new round can start, focusing on a different aspect or part of the assessment.

Peer review can only be successful if all participants actively participate and they can all give and receive good feedback. To ensure this, please find more information about giving and receiving feedback below.

5.2 Giving and Receiving Feedback

The Johari window

How feedback should work can be explained through the Johari window. This is a communication model developed by Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham in 1955. The model has four quadrants.

The Johari window:

The open area is known to the reviewer and recipient, these things can be discussed.
The blind spot is known to others, but not to yourself. Examples of this are when someone often uses a certain stop word, structurally mispronounces a word or uses a term incorrectly - all without realizing it.
The hidden area is that which people consciously keep hidden from others. For example, if you want to keep a substantive discovery to yourself, or when personal aspects are involved that you would rather not share with others.
The unknown area is not known both by yourself and others, and therefore not subject to discussion.

Purpose of feedback

Giving and receiving feedback is about solving the blind spots of the recipient. When writing a report, for example, your citations might be incorrect without you knowing it. The reviewer can point this out and the recipient can then improve this. By doing this, the behaviour from the blind spot is drawn into the open area. Through open communication between the reviewer and the recipient, subjects from the hidden area can also be moved into the open area. This will only happen if the recipient feels safe in the professional relationship. Good communication can open a lot of things up for discussion, even if you are insecure about something and you would rather not show this. The issue has then been moved into the open area and can be addressed through feedback.

Components of feedback

Giving feedback consists of observing, interpreting and evaluating:

observing happens when you see and hear someone's visible behaviour during a presentation or when you let the content sink in. You also observe when you read a text
interpretations are ideas about what the observed means
when evaluating you give a value judgement. An interpretation is therefore not the same as an evaluation. It is essential to start with observation

An example of oral feedback in a presentation is hearing words like 'maybe,' 'I suppose,' 'or something,' (observation); the speaker is uncertain (interpretation); the content remains too vague and leaves something to be desired (evaluation).

Written feedback can be for example: the text contains few signpost words or phrases (observation); this comes across as unstructured (interpretation); reading the text takes too much time and effort (evaluation).

Oral vs written feedback

Feedback can be given orally or in writing. They each have their advantages and disadvantages.

Oral feedback often follows directly on observed behaviour. The advantage is that the reviewer and the recipient know exactly what has just been said or happened. They can discuss it immediately. The disadvantage is that you cannot carefully consider the giving and receiving of the feedback. As a result, the feedback provided may appear threatening.

The advantage of written feedback is that the reviewer has more time to think and can add nuances to their feedback. The recipient can review the feedback at an opportune time. Disadvantages are that the recipient cannot immediately ask for clarification and that written feedback can come across harsher than intended.

Subjective & selective

Observations, interpretations and evaluations are subjective. Observations, interpretations and evaluations must therefore be worded and received as being subjective:

therefore, when giving feedback you always use the first person
when receiving feedback, you must always be critical
if you do not agree with the observation, interpretation and/or evaluation or if they are not clearly formulated, you can ask for clarification and/or a second opinion. It is up to you whether you accept and process the feedback
keep in mind that the reviewer took the time and effort to give the feedback. So always thank them!

Besides subjective, the observation in feedback is also selective. After all, not everyone always notices the same things. When peer reviewing with multiple readers, it is expected that more points for improvement will emerge.

Several peers can observe the same behaviour, but interpret and evaluate that observation differently.

Methods of feedback

There are several ways to provide feedback. In the educational situation, the following methods can be used:

The sandwich method: start by mentioning a positive point, then indicate a point for improvement and finish with a positive point
Tips and tops: name tips and tops, for example as many tips (read: points for improvement) as tops (read: positive points)
The Pendleton method: the peer or expert reviewer first asks the recipient what the recipient thinks is good and then gives their own feedback on good points. Next, the peer or expert asks the recipient what he or she would like to improve and then the reviewer gives feedback on points for improvement. The recipient then summarizes what has been discussed. Finally, both parties specify in concrete terms what consensus has been reached on the aspects that need improvement
Feed-up - Feedback - Feed forward method: first name the set of criteria that belongs to the aspect of research on which the feedback must be provided (feed-up). This may, for example, concern the criteria for a good research question, but it may also concern the subject of the Call for Papers to which the recipient must respond. Then indicate where the recipient stands in relation to those criteria or that subject and explain why this is the case (feedback). Finally, identify what elements the recipient can change in his research to improve his position in relation to the criteria or the topic (feedforward)

In addition, there are all kinds of methods aimed at changing behavior or performance, such as the 4G model, the "I me you method", the STARR method, the INGE method and the 360 degree method. These methods, however, do not apply to scientific practice or to the scientific educational situation and are therefore not further discussed here.

Tips

Tips for the reviewer

feedback is always concrete. This means that the feedback is not vague or too general
feedback is never about the person but is focused on the assignment
specify when you observe, interpret or evaluate
use the first person
style is descriptive
only give feedback on aspects that can be changed, so on aspects that the recipient can actually use
link the feedback to the assessment criteria of the assignment
ask the recipient if they understand the feedback

Tips for the recipient of feedback

indicate whether you would like to receive feedback on specific points
listen or read actively
be critical
ask for clarification
remember that the reviewer wants to help you
thank the reviewer

Ethical aspects of feedback and peer review

Peer review only works if everyone actively participates. In exchange for feedback from others, you provide them with feedback. Giving feedback involves a degree of confidentiality. Your peer reveals something personal and you must be respectful. Peer review and giving feedback can therefore only be successful in a safe environment between people who trust each other.

It goes without saying that you cannot use other people's ideas. This is considered plagiarism. For this, see Year 1. Of course you can learn from other people's mistakes or approach, using this to your advantage to benefit your own ideas. Do you suspect plagiarism in the work of the person you are giving feedback to? Discuss this with the expert. They will act accordingly.

BA Kunstgeschiedenis Leerlijnen

5. Peer Review & Feedback

5.1 Peer Review