Teaching Students How to Peer Review Papers Online

Didactics students to write effectively has been a major business organization of educators for many years. It has been observed that fifty-fifty after completing undergraduate composition courses, students have difficulty translating their writing skills to biomedical classes (6). Some of these difficulties may stalk from the lack of articulate written guidelines for writing assignments in some classes. These may include detailed information about the purpose and expectations of a paper, formatting guidelines, and grading criteria (viii). Information technology is as well possible that students do non recognize a practical need for technical writing skills, particularly in engineering and the applied sciences. Nonetheless it has been estimated that a typical engineer spends as much as one-third of each day writing (four).

In addition, many students do not understand the procedure of scientific writing nor the significance of the peer review process. It has been reported that 92% of baccalaureate nursing students engaged in a major written consignment indicated that they did non know how to get well-nigh getting an article published (9). This has led kinesthesia to create writing assignments that mimic or teach parts of the publishing process. Some were limited to education different strategies for peer review (3). Others required graduate students to write papers strictly according to the guidelines of a major journal (ane). Some farther required students to first write a "letter of enquiry" to inform the instructor of the field of study affair (9). Yet others included an open review of students' papers by their peers (5). Each of these methods demonstrated surprisingly strong results as gauged by student evaluations and publication rates.

It has been reported that peer editing of papers amidst undergraduate students is a useful tool non only for improving student writing but for reducing instructor workload (7). Still, these methods take nearly oft been instituted at the graduate rather than undergraduate level. Furthermore, none fully reproduced single-bullheaded peer review together with the publishing process from alphabetic character of inquiry to terminal, accepted typhoon.

We depict a detailed method for pedagogy students the full scientific publishing process, including anonymous peer review, during the procedure of writing a term paper. The consequence is a review article in the format for submission to a major scientific periodical. This method has been implemented in a jail cell and molecular biology course for undergraduate engineering majors. It thus intervenes early on in their postsecondary education. Withal, the method should be as applicable to graduate educational activity.

METHODS

Outline of the process.

The catamenia and timeline of the method are illustrated in Fig. 1. Students prepare a "review commodity" as described in the guidelines for authors of a major biomedical periodical. The students first select a subject that fits the topical requirements of the class and submit this equally a letter of research to the instructor, who serves as "Editor." If the topic is acceptable, the educatee begins research and writing. The outset draft of the paper is due midsemester and is given confidentially to two other students in the class for their critique. Within ii wk, students render their critiques, and these are given dorsum to the authors together with a summary from the teacher. Given the comments of their peers and the instructor, students write a concluding draft. Students are non graded on their offset draft nor on the critiques they receive. Rather, their form is based on their final draft and the quality of the critiques they write. The method thus parallels the actual process of writing and publishing.

This teaching method was first undertaken at the Academy of Virginia in BIOM 304, "Jail cell and Molecular Biology for Engineers." This course, together with a related grade in human physiology, is designed for undergraduate engineering science majors that are interested in entering the field of biomedical engineering science. Consequently, students prepare their papers according to the guidelines for authors of the Register of Biomedical Engineering.

Letter of inquiry.

Guidelines were provided to students for the topics that are acceptable for papers. In the form described here, papers were required to reflect either 1) the employ of engineering to solve a problem in cell physiology or 2) applications of cell physiology to advancing engineering. These guidelines were expressed both verbally and in the syllabus.

In one case students had chosen a topic, they were required to write a alphabetic character of research to the instructor expressing an involvement in submitting a review article on their chosen topic. It was through this letter that students obtained permission to write on their chosen topic. The required components of the letter of the alphabet were 1) the subject area about which they wished to write and 2) why the subject was appropriate for the specified journal.

Students were immune to work individually or in pairs. Submitting the letter of inquiry every bit "coauthors" committed them to working in pairs. Students were also informed that it is not the job of an Editor (in this case the instructor) to resolve differences of stance or personality conflicts betwixt authors.

Guidelines for authors.

Students were provided modified guidelines for the Register of Biomedical Engineering, although the journal should certainly be selected as appropriate for the course existence taught. The guidelines for the journal were modified just to remove inapplicable information and unnecessary details (e.g., guidelines for use of human being subjects).

Starting time submission.

Students submitted three copies of their paper by a due date about midsemester (Fig. ane). It was explained that ii other students would come across and read their newspaper (see Peer review). If in that location were item classmates who the authors felt would have a disharmonize of interest in reviewing their newspaper, they had to be so listed in a cover letter submitted with their paper.

The starting time draft of the paper was required to exist complete, with all the references and figures in place, of required length, and finished in every respect. This version of their paper, however, was not graded. The intent was to mimic the fact that the quality of a manuscript initially submitted to a journal does not necessarily make up one's mind whether it will eventually be published. Although the first typhoon was not graded, penalties were assessed for 1) late submission, five points per twenty-four hour period; ii) incomplete papers, 25 points; 3) failure to comply with the Instructions for Authors, 5 points.

Peer review.

I copy of the first draft was retained and read by the instructor, and two were distributed to other students in the class chosen according to similarity in the topics of their papers. The identity of the reviewers was strictly confidential. Students were provided review forms closely matching those used past major journals. They were also provided with guidelines for review that gave an impression of the expected content of the review. The guidelines for review are shown in Table one.

**Tabular array 1 Guidelines for review given to student**
Presentation	(Should Conform to Information for Authors)
Writing	Is the writing articulate, concise, and in proper English? Delight point out frequent misspellings, unclear sentences, failures of logic, or poor sequencing of ideas.
References	Are more used than necessary? Are fewer used than necessary?
Tables and figures	Can they be simplified or condensed? Should whatsoever be omitted? Are they artistically advisable and sharp in dissimilarity? Are legends complete then that the pregnant of the figure is clear?
Abstract	Does the abstract in one paragraph define the topic and state its importance in a clear and curtailed manner?
Format	Does the paper conform to the Instructions for Authors?
Content	(Should Conform to the Syllabus)
Topic	Does the subject area of the article fit within the requirements in the syllabus?
References	Exercise the references reverberate an adequate inquiry endeavor?
Length	Was the paper of adequate or excessive length? Should the topic be expanded or narrowed in scope?
Intellectual content	Did the paper reflect understanding of the material on the author's part? Did the data exceed that of the principle reference (if applicable), or was it a unproblematic reiteration? Did you, as a reviewer, acquire something from reading this paper or would your peers?

Care must exist taken in setting up a review and then that papers are non lost and then that if reviews are not received, they may be easily tracked. The following method was used:

papers were numbered serially every bit they were received, and that number was recorded by the authors' names on the grading sheet.
the papers were sorted into categories according to the bailiwick affair (east.g., factor therapy, instrumentation, biomaterials, etc.).
for a given student, ii papers were selected at random from within the category of the paper they wrote. Thus each student reviews papers with roughly similar topics to their own. Because some students worked in pairs, several students received only a single manuscript to review.
the numbers of the manuscripts reviewed by a given educatee were recorded on the grading canvas. Each student received the paper(due south), review sheets, and guidelines for review.

Students were reminded repeatedly that they would be graded on the quality of their reviews, not on the reviews their papers received. Thus at that place was no advantage to being lenient in the review of a poorly written paper. Students were reminded that if they were also lenient, they would receive a depression score for that review. Furthermore, the author would not get adequate feedback to enable him or her to improve the paper before its terminal submission.

Confidentiality and anonymity in the review process is critical to successful implementation of this method. Students are warned of "Laurels Lawmaking" prosecution should they 1) inform another student in form of whose paper one is reviewing, 2) disclose the contents of that paper to another student, or 3) use the content of that paper to the betterment of one's ain manuscript (aside from references, which are a matter of public record). Penalties were assessed for late reviews at a rate of v points per day.

Revision and last submission.

Students were not graded according to the reviews their papers received. Rather, students were permitted the opportunity to revise their papers based on the reviews from their peers and the instructor. The teacher's review was in the form of a letter summarizing the comments of the reviewers and his/her personal stance of the paper. Most frequently, revisions consisted of simple rewriting of sections for style or organization. Even so, some students found information technology necessary to conduct additional research to support their ideas. Near the end of the semester, students submitted a unmarried copy of the final manuscript, along with a point-by-betoken response to their reviews. The indicate-by-point response ensured that students had thoroughly examined their reviews and provided a convenient reference for the instructor so that papers did not demand to be reread in particular to assign a terminal grade. Penalties were levied for late papers (ten points/twenty-four hours) and failure to submit a bespeak-by-indicate response to reviews (ten points off).

The concluding submission was graded by the instructor alone, but using the same guidelines every bit when the paper was reviewed. In concept, how well students respond to their reviews should have a direct impact on their final grade.

Grading policies.

The newspaper and peer review procedure constituted 30% of the concluding class grade. Overall grades on the papers were based on four elements: letter of inquiry, 0 points; first draft, 10 points; reviews, 25 points; final draft, 65 points.

Peer review grades were based on 1) how well and how thoroughly the pupil addressed all the points requested on the review sheet and two) whether the instructor agreed with their assessment. Students were told that the instructor (i.e., the Editor) always has the final say on the quality of a review and often on subjective points, such as organization, relevance, importance, or clarity.

The final typhoon, as indicated above, was graded according to the aforementioned guidelines by which they were reviewed. This rendered the grading process somewhat more objective.

RESULTS

Statistics and anonymous feedback were nerveless from 35 or 36 (cease and beginning of the semester, respectively) of 39 students enrolled in the class. The polled sample consisted of ane first-twelvemonth, 11 second-yr, 23 third-year, and vi 4th-year undergraduates. Students were asked six yes/no questions at the beginning and end of the semester to gauge their basic agreement of scientific publication and peer review. The questions and results are summarized in Table 2.

**Table 2 Results of yeah/no questions posed to students on the commencement and last day of class for one semester**
Question	% Answering "Yes"
Question	Offset class	Ending class
1. Should y'all be allowed to include URLs (Cyberspace addresses) as references in term papers?	92%	three%
two. Is at that place a deviation in the reliability of data you receive in a scientific journal compared with the Cyberspace?	75%	100%
3. Is at that place a difference in the reliability of information you receive in a scientific journal compared with magazines or newspapers?	70%	89%
4. If y'all wished to publish in a scientific or technology journal, would y'all know how to go nigh doing so?	two%	91%
v. Practice you understand the concept of "peer review" as it applies to scientific publishing?	39%	100%
half dozen. Once a manuscript is submitted for publication in a scientific journal, is there ever an opportunity to revise it before publication?	31%	87%

The most hit consequence is a dramatic increase in the professed level of understanding of the scientific publishing process (question 4) and of peer review (question five). This is consistent with the increase in the number of students agreeing that there is a difference in the reliability of information in scientific literature compared with that in other media. Indeed, later on engaging in this process, only ane student responded that uniform resource locators (URLs) were acceptable every bit references in manuscripts.

At the end of the semester, students were asked to numerically score their disagreement or agreement with several statements well-nigh their feel (ane–10, respectively; Table 3). Students strongly agreed (score >8) that the quality of their papers improved and that they would know how to get most writing a manuscript for publication as a result of this teaching method. Students also agreed (score >7) that every bit a result of this teaching method, they learned more than about cell biology, will research papers and assess others' piece of work differently, and learned to write in a professional person "style." However, students agreed only slightly (score >6) that their writing skills improved or that they would alter the mode they write in the futurity.

**TABLE three Numerical scoring of statements given to students on the last twenty-four hours of form**
Argument "every bit a result of this project, … "	Mean Score
ane. I learned more about prison cell biological science	7.v
ii. I sharpened my editing skills	7.4
3. My paper was improved	eight.5
4. My writing skills improved	6.5
5. I volition change the mode I write	half dozen.viii
6. I volition modify the way I research papers	7.5
7. I learned to review and assess other people'southward work	seven.7
viii. I would know how to write a manuscript for publication	8.ii
nine. I learned how to write in a professional "style"	vii.ix
Other questions
x. Earlier completing this projection, I understood the procedure of scientific publishing.	three.3
11. Before completing this projection, I understood the relative reliability of data in scientific journals, magazines, newspapers, and the Internet.	6.9
12. I was able to comment on the scientific content of the paper(s) I reviewed.	6.nine

The terminate of the semester survey also assessed students' opinions of specific aspects of the review article/peer review method through written answers.

In full general, what did y'all think of the process of writing and revising your review article? One hundred percentage of the responses to this question were favorable. Students uniformly felt the experience was helpful and practical. A typical response to this question read "splendid—research was valuable, peer review was exceptionally helpful, and reading other papers was valuable besides."

If you worked as a pair, how did you find the experience? Xc percent of students responding institute the feel enjoyable and less work. Only i replied that the process left him/her feeling "distraught."

What did you think of the process of peer review? Ninety-one percent of students responded favorably to peer review. Some students expressed disappointment that there was simply time for one round of review before final submission. Seventeen percent of students complained that they had received either i) ane favorable and 1 unfavorable review or 2) one review that was poorly written. These students felt that the instructor should "enforce" the writing of good or uniform reviews beyond the assignment of a grade.

Finally, students were given the opportunity to write undirected comments. Seventeen percent of students indicated that writing the newspaper and engaging in peer review were their favorite aspects of the course. In dissimilarity, when the term paper arroyo was used, none of the students listed the writing of the newspaper as their favorite aspect of the course.

Although it is admittedly a poor measure out for comparison, the mean score on the final typhoon (neglecting late penalties or the other graded portions) using this method was 93.ane% (±7.2 SD, due north = 34) compared with 85.nine% (±24.half dozen SD, north = sixteen) the previous year using the traditional "term newspaper" approach.

DISCUSSION

Requiring students to keep through peer review and writing according to periodical quidelines results in higher quality papers, an understanding of the significance of peer-reviewed journals, and knowledge of the scientific publishing process itself. Past requiring the format of a scientific journal, students are given much clearer information almost the purpose and expectations of a newspaper, as has been recommended by others (8). Equally a event, grading is rendered much more objectively, and the instructor receives fewer complaints and petitions for grade changes. Finally, the students leave the class with useful technical skill–writing for publication. If applied at the graduate level, use of this method would certainly result in publication-quality manuscripts.

Use of this method has many benefits for both the instructor and the student compared with traditional term paper approaches. First, students acquire more in specific areas:

students acquire the scientific and technical publishing process up to manuscript acceptance.
students learn the value of peer review. Through feel, they come to understand why peer-reviewed journals are considered more reliable equally references than newspapers, magazines, encyclopedias, and the Internet.
Students learn to write in a manner and according to guidelines that take practical relevance to their careers.

This method as well has other tangible benefits for the instructor and the student. Get-go, the penalties for tardiness are sufficiently heavy, the event beingness that few items were ever turned in more than 1 solar day late. In fact, many students appreciated the extra incentive to complete the assignments. Furthermore, the necessity of strict guidelines is obvious to the student when presented within the context of peer review and paper revision. If guidelines are non strictly enforced, one's classmates are directly affected.

Second, grading the final draft according to the guidelines used for review rendered the grading procedure itself relatively objective and eliminated form challenges by the students. In the previous year, 25% of students petitioned for changes to the course they received on their paper. With the use of this method, there were no petitions.

As a consequence of grading the final typhoon co-ordinate to the guidelines used for review, responding to all of the points in the reviews almost guaranteed that the paper would meet the criteria for a good course. The quality, consistency, and grades of the final papers were markedly improved over the previous academic twelvemonth of the same course, when the consignment consisted of a term paper.

The actual improvement in writing and research skills when using this method is difficult to gauge. Writing styles and skills must be assessed subjectively. Because the method was implemented in a single-section form, nosotros are not able to make completely objective side-past-side comparisons of this method to a traditional term paper arroyo. Grading standards for the newspaper were greatly elevated when this method was instituted. Yet, students scored somewhat better on the paper than in previous offerings of the form, professed enjoyment of the project, and showed marked improvements in the final written product as judged by the instructor. These are strong subjective indicators of improved student operation. Results from student surveys as well support an improvement in understanding of peer review (Tables two and 3). Especially telling in this regard was dramatic decrease in the percentage of students who believed URLs should be acceptable references in term papers (93% to 3%) earlier and after engaging in peer review.

Students agreed only marginally that their writing skills had improved and that engaging in this process would change the way they write papers in the future (Table 3). This suggests that it is the feedback from peers and the highly structured nature of the assignment that led to an improvement in the final manuscript and not the experience of writing. This is somewhat surprising given the small-scale number of writing assignments given undergraduate engineering science majors. All the same, it does support the notion that clear written guidelines for writing assignments are central to student operation (8).

Pitfalls and limitations.

This method is non without difficulties. First and foremost is the increased workload for the instructor. This is in contrast to a previously reported implementation of peer review that resulted in a decrease in the time required for grading (vii). However, reading each of the student papers equally the Editor, grading the reviews themselves, writing a summary of the reviews, setting up the review process, and assigning grades to the final draft take a great bargain of time. Faculty interested in implementing this method should make utilise of graduate instruction assistants whenever possible.

Ii other mechanisms may be used to limit the instructor workload. The first and most obvious is simply to leave the review of the offset submission to the student peers. For the most part, however, this simply shifts the instructor workload from midsemester to the end of the semester. Another approach is to merely crave students to piece of work in pairs. Indeed, in the current offering of the author's undergraduate course, implementing this requirement has cut the number of manuscripts by ∼xxx%.

Students ranked themselves on the statement "I could annotate on the scientific content of the papers I reviewed" and returned a mean score of 6.ix (Table 3). Nevertheless, a detailed assessment of the reviews showed that authors writing on closely related topics (e.g., two papers on Deoxyribonucleic acid-based computing) were the only students who actually commented on the scientific content and accuracy of each other's manuscripts. In an endeavour to correct this deficiency, students are currently given a pick of half dozen narrow topics on which to write. The intent is to force some overlap of scientific knowledge and thereby enhance the review procedure.

The importance of instance manuscripts and letters of enquiry cannot be underestimated. The format, content, and intellectual level of these items is completely unknown to the average pupil, and examples were the most frequently requested piece of information past students. They are now fabricated available to students on the class website (2).

Some students may have difficulty existence critical of their peers' manuscripts while wishing to back up those other students. Four measures help remove this barrier to a successful review: 1) severe punishment is enforced for breaking the confidentiality of peer review, ii) students may decline to review a manuscript based on conflict of interest, 3) the reviews themselves are graded, and iv) students are lectured on the importance of critical reviews to generating a terminal manuscript that tin receive a high course. Together, these measures have promoted in-depth reviews ranging qualitatively from polite to scathing.

Several variations on this method may exist envisioned that would further raise the experience of writing or expand the work to fill a stand-lone undergraduate or graduate form.

Multiple rounds of review.

Some students suggested that nosotros engage in multiple rounds of review to better correspond the actual publishing process and let them to further hone their manuscripts. Due to time constraints, this is not practical in a typical i-semester class or where the newspaper is only a fraction of the grade.

Production of a "journal."

Some students suggested that all or some of the review articles be compiled into a journal that course members could continue. The complexity of this step could range from simply spiral bounden photocopies of the final drafts to enlisting the assist of a desktop publisher to produce galleys for pupil inspection before terminal printing. Clearly, this is non appropriate for anything but a class defended to teaching scientific writing.

Steering toward publication.

In college-level classes, the authors of specially well-researched papers might exist encouraged to refine and submit manuscripts to existing scientific journals. Indeed, this approach has been taken in at least one graduate nursing course (1).

Inclusion in the senior thesis process.

Finally, many universities, including the University of Virginia, require a senior thesis to be written to receive a baccalaureate degree. Standards for the writing and format of senior theses vary. However, requiring students to write their senior thesis co-ordinate to the guidelines of a few select journals and engaging in peer review of ane another's piece of work would add together a new dimension to this process and provide additional opportunities for publication.

The writer gratefully acknowledges the by and present students of BIOM 304 at the Univ. of Virginia who served equally the "test subjects" for this work. Special thanks are as well extended to Dr. T. Skalak and to C. Kirby-Smith for many helpful comments.

Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: W. H. Guilford, Dept. of Biomedical Engineering, Box 800759, Charlottesville, VA 22908 (East-mail: [email protected]).

Received 13 December 1999; accepted in final form 18 April 2001

REFERENCES

1 Gay JT. Instruction graduate students to write for publication. J Nursing Ed 33: 328–329, 1994.
Google Scholar
2 Guilford WH. BIOM 304 [Online] Academy of Virginia. http://yakko.bme.virginia.edu/biom304, 2001.
Google Scholar
3 Lightfoot JT. A different method of educational activity peer review systems. Am J Physiol Adv Physiol Educ 274: S57–S61, 1998.
Link | Google Scholar
iv Mathes JC and Stevenson DW. Completing the bridge: report writing in 'real life' engineering courses. Eng Ed 67: 154–157, 1976.
Google Scholar
five Miller BK and Muhlenkamp A. Educational activity students how to publish in nursing journals: a group approach. J Nursing Ed 28: 379–381, 1989.
Google Scholar
half dozen Pinkava BP and Haviland CP. Teaching writing and thinking skills. Nursing Outlook 32: 270–271, 1984.
ISI | Google Scholar
7 Sharp JE, Olds BM, Miller RL, and Dyrud MA. Four effective writing strategies for engineering science classes. J Eng Ed 88: 53–57, 1999.
Crossref | Google Scholar
8 Sorrell JM and Brown HN. Mentoring students in writing: 'gourmet express' versus 'fast food service.' J Nursing Ed thirty: 284–286, 1991.
Google Scholar
9 Woolley Equally and Hatcher BJ. Teaching students to write for publication. J Nursing Ed 25: 300–301, 1986.
Google Scholar

strakerthadell43.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/advances.2001.25.3.167