Peer review is a very significant stage in the determination of the quality, relevance, appropriateness and credibility of a literary work. Such works may include single and co-authored articles or books. Such works can be presented in conferences, sent to the editor of a newspaper, journal, and blog or to the printing house to be published for a wider consumption. While carrying out a peer review, it is recommended that the team should be constituted by professionals who not only have a sound knowledge about the content, but has a language competency. This can enable them to evaluate the performance, standard of quality and grammatical aspect of the article.
While conducting this exercise, we had to make a lot of preparations. Meaning, we had to gather a team of experts to assist in doing this work. This is the only thing which would enable us to perform better and be in a position of giving a rigorous evaluation and analysis. As a result, it will be easier for us to determine if the work was done as per the required standards. Although it was a very challenging exercise, we had to our best to ensure that the work was properly done. Meaning, there was a coordination and organization of the team.
Since we had a good number of people to be involved in the review panel, there was need to ensure that everyone plays his role efficiently. Hence, we had to organize each and everyone into small groups. Here, each panelist was given a specific role to perform. While doing all these timing would be a very important factor which had to be considered. Therefore, the division of labor made everyone to be committed to his work. This was done after formulation of a review form in which a set of questions were designed to help in asking a series of questions which would be looked at during the review process.
Because of this kind of organization, I would like to report that our team did a tremendous job. It is true that we succeeded in conducting a peer review process because we ended up being fair to all without any discrimination. The whole exercise was based on professionalism because it was the primary pillar on which it was based. However, it is better to acknowledge that the allocation of roles was not challenging. As already highlighted, our team was made up of people with different expertise, interests and levels of experience. Once the decision had been made to allocate each member a task for which he is best qualified, it was not contested.
Therefore, I would like to report that both the team and individual performance was overwhelmingly good. Since everyone was placed in his area of interest, it became apparent that they would deliver their best. Besides, the designing of the peer review form played a crucial role in guiding each of the reviewers on exactly what to do at any given time. Even though people always have diverging interests and principles, it is true that we managed to stick to our plan to produce a god work.
The following was the peer review form used in this exercise:
Please, ensure you observe all the publishing rules for this group
- Review Questions
Please, do not have any discrimination
- Comments to the Author
Is the manuscript up to standard?
Is it appropriate?
Does it have a right content?
What of language competence?
Is it valid?
Were you confidential in your work?
Should it be accepted for publishing? Why?
Works Cited
Brian M. (2001) "Suppression Stories" in Fund for Intellectual Dissent
Elizabeth W. et al. (2000). "Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial". The British
Ludwick R, et al. (1998). "Documenting the scholarship of clinical teaching through peer
review". Nurse Educ. 23 (6): 17–20.
