Anthony Cucci Straub
1) When reading the text, I was not very surprised by what the author had to say. He is clearly a scholar, and it is clear when reading his advice that this method is the best way to conduct peer-review, so there were no "surprises". One new perspective he gave me was how "All responses are incomplete and provisional". Writing is an art form, and contrary to disciplines of STEM, there is no strict set of boundaries for which the final product must turn out to be. This always bothered me, specifically the thought "How do you know when art is done?". There is truly an infinite amount of ways to write sentences and even more perspectives of writing to have when creating a paper. I think accepting that nothing in writing is never truly "done" or "perfect" can help me to maximize the writing I create rather than trying to keep recreating new writing in order to get the "best" perspective and content.
2) The strategies in this text will definitely help me. I like the one suggesting that you write comments as you would normally talk to the writer. If you are their friend, talk like a friend. That takes the formality out of it, which brings me to the next strategy that I took from this text, which is reading and responding rather than reading and editing. The author states that you are not asked to write and you are not asked to edit. Rather, you are asked to read, therefore you should simply respond to the what you read. Tell the reader how you read the paper (where you felt confused, where it was interesting, questions, etc). I plan to treat it like I would if I were to talk to a friend about a new movie I just saw, asking questions that weren't answered and pointing out parts that I loved.
3) I have done peer-review in the past and I have always hated it. It feels awkward criticizing people who I don't know and I always feel like those who criticize me are getting too personal by reading what I write. I don't mind if a teacher reads my paper because it is his/her job, but when a peer sees my work I feel very uncomfortable. When reviewing my peers work, I always had the "in-and-out" approach that the author talked about: do what is asked of me to get the participation credit and that is it.
2) The strategies in this text will definitely help me. I like the one suggesting that you write comments as you would normally talk to the writer. If you are their friend, talk like a friend. That takes the formality out of it, which brings me to the next strategy that I took from this text, which is reading and responding rather than reading and editing. The author states that you are not asked to write and you are not asked to edit. Rather, you are asked to read, therefore you should simply respond to the what you read. Tell the reader how you read the paper (where you felt confused, where it was interesting, questions, etc). I plan to treat it like I would if I were to talk to a friend about a new movie I just saw, asking questions that weren't answered and pointing out parts that I loved.
3) I have done peer-review in the past and I have always hated it. It feels awkward criticizing people who I don't know and I always feel like those who criticize me are getting too personal by reading what I write. I don't mind if a teacher reads my paper because it is his/her job, but when a peer sees my work I feel very uncomfortable. When reviewing my peers work, I always had the "in-and-out" approach that the author talked about: do what is asked of me to get the participation credit and that is it.
Comments
Post a Comment