If you’re like many students, you might dread the thought of participating in peer review. Perhaps you’re embarrassed to have your writing read by peers and nervous that they’ll judge your rough draft too harshly. Or, as a reader, perhaps you’re concerned about hurting a classmate’s feelings with your criticisms. Maybe you’re just worried that the process will be a waste of time, and that nothing useful will come of it. All of these fears are understandable, but they’re also unfortunate, because peer review can be one of the most effective and constructive ways of improving your writing.

Part of what makes peer review tricky is that we’re often not sure what to expect from it. What is good peer review? Should the reviewer just give really positive and enthusiastic feedback to make the writer feel more confident? Should they be honest if they hate the paper? Should they proofread like an editor and correct every single mistake in the draft? (The answer is no to all of these questions).

One way to make sure that peer review works for all parties is to use the SPARK strategy. Peer review feedback should be Specific, Prescriptive, Actionable, Referenced, and Kind (Gardner).

Specific feedback avoids general or vague comments like “good introduction” or “conclusion needs work”. Instead, more helpful feedback would specify why the introduction was effective or the thesis ineffective. “Your introduction has a good hook; it segues into the thesis well, and your thesis statement provides a clear direction of where you are going. Good job,” or “Your conclusion just restates the points made in the paper, but doesn’t help the reader see why they should care about your argument.” By connecting comments clearly and directly to a certain sentence or section, evaluations help the writer make positive changes to the essay.

One of the best ways to make comments specific is to lean into the word “because.” For example…

Prescriptive comments don’t need to be step-by-step, but they should help the writer think about solutions to problems in the writing.

Being prescriptive allows a reviewer to not only give feedback about what is “good” and “bad” but allows the peer to make suggestions. If a thesis is missing direction, a reviewer should give that direction and tell the writer what they could do to fix the issues that are present.

Actionable feedback helps the writer understand what they should do next.

Giving positive and constructive notes is fine, but adding suggestions is what will truly help a writer understand the feedback, which leads in the actionable part of the process. The writer should see the prescriptive feedback that is given and know what needs to happen next. In the example above, the actionable part is the sentence “you could make the argument clearer by adding those points to your thesis.” This tells the reader what to do to incorporate the feedback they have just been given.

Referenced feedback is based directly on the criteria required for the paper. This typically will come in the form of referencing the assignment instructions, the course materials, or the rubric that will be used to grade the paper. This is the “evaluation” feedback that will help the writer understand what areas may lose points when the instructor grades it.

Finally, the kind feedback is one that should be understood but has to be noted.  Mutual respect and kindness is needed in any peer-review situation. We won’t give a table here of “unkind feedback,” but we will offer a few pieces of advice:

Positive statements should be as specific as negative ones. Saying “this is pretty good…” and then picking apart the details of the essay doesn’t feel like balanced feedback. Whether you’re praising or critiquing the writer, specificity is key. Express places where, as a reader, you were drawn in to the writing:

• I thought that the second paragraph was really clear and interesting because….
• I like the way that you structured paragraph X because ….
• I appreciate your use of (signal phrases? citations? MLA format? transitions? etc) because I have been struggling with that in my own writing. Thanks for the example

It can help to avoid the pronoun you. The pronoun you makes it seem like the person did something wrong; it makes the feedback personal. “You’re being unclear in this paragraph” focuses on the writer, whereas “I had trouble sorting out what’s happening in this paragraph” focuses on the reader’s experience of the work.

Try to avoid these types of peer assessment phrases:

• You should fix
• The assignment says to _____ but you didn’t do that
• You need more____
• You need less_____
• To make the paper better, you need to____

Instead, use “I” phrases to express your experience as a reader:

1. My understanding is that the thesis of this paper should _______. I did not clearly see ______ in your thesis. Instead, I see (explain).
2. I was confused by this sentence (share the sentence) and I took it to mean (explain how you read that sentence).
3. In paragraph ______ I thought that, based on what you said in the first sentence, the whole paragraph would discuss X. But it looks to me like at the end of the paragraph, you begin discussing Y, which felt to me like a new and different idea.

It can help to place negative feedback between positive statements (also known as the “sandwich method”). “The introduction and thesis are really strong, so I was looking forward to seeing how the argument would back up the claim. But then I had trouble seeing connections between the proofs and the argument. I wonder if the evidence could be explained more clearly, since you’ve got really good evidence here…”

As a peer, it is important to remember that you are not the instructor, and you are not an expert. But you are a reader, and so your experience of the work is valuable and relevant. You don’t need to take on the role of a “grader” or offer suggestions to fix the paper. You don’t need to correct things. Sometimes, what is more valuable is if you share your experience as a reader of the draft, explaining what felt easy and clear to you, and also where you struggled to understand what the writer was trying to accomplish. Be honest, accurate, detailed, and descriptive. Write in such a way that you offer your genuine readerly perspective to your partner, not a list of directions or directives.