Editing Peer review (section)

== Comparison and improvement ==
Magda Tigchelaar compares peer review with self-assessment through an experiment that divided students into three groups: self-assessment, peer review, and no review. Across four writing projects, she observed changes in each group, with surprising results showing significant improvement only in the self-assessment group. The author's analysis suggests that self-assessment allows individuals to clearly understand the revision goals at each stage, as the author is the most familiar with their writing. Thus, self-checking naturally follows a systematic and planned approach to revision. In contrast, the effectiveness of peer review is often limited due to the lack of structured feedback, characterized by scattered, meaningless summaries and evaluations that fail to meet the author's expectations for revising their work.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Tigchelaar |first=Magda |date=2016-01-01 |title=The Impact of Peer Review on Writing Development in French as a Foreign Language |url=https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/journalrw/vol2/iss2/2 |journal=Journal of Response to Writing |volume=2 |issue=2 |issn=2575-9809}}</ref>

Stephanie Conner and Jennifer Gray highlight the value of most students' feedback during peer review. They argue that many peer review sessions fail to meet students' expectations, as students, even as reviewers themselves, feel uncertain about providing constructive feedback due to their lack of confidence in their writing. The authors offer numerous improvement strategies. For instance, the peer review process can be segmented into groups, where students present the papers to be reviewed while other group members take notes and analyze them. Then, the review scope can be expanded to the entire class. This widens the review sources and further enhances the level of professionalism.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Conner |first=Stephanie |last2=Gray |first2=Jennifer |date=2023-04-15 |title=Resisting the Deficit Model: Embedding Writing Center Tutors during Peer Review in Writing-Intensive Courses |url=https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/journalrw/vol9/iss1/4 |journal=Journal of Response to Writing |volume=9 |issue=1 |issn=2575-9809}}</ref>

With evolving technology, peer review is also expected to evolve. New tools have the potential to transform the peer review process. Mimi Li discusses the effectiveness and feedback of an online peer review software used in their freshman writing class. Unlike traditional peer review methods commonly used in classrooms, the online peer review software offers many tools for editing articles and comprehensive guidance. For instance, it lists numerous questions peer reviewers can ask and allows various comments to be added to the selected text. Based on observations over a semester, students showed varying degrees of improvement in their writing skills and grades after using the online peer review software. Additionally, they highly praised the technology of online peer review.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Li |first=Mimi |date=2018-01-01 |title=Online Peer Review Using Turnitin PeerMark |url=https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/journalrw/vol4/iss2/5 |journal=Journal of Response to Writing |volume=4 |issue=2 |issn=2575-9809}}</ref>