peer editing checklist research paper

• About NuWrite
• Writing Advice
• Engineering & Design
• General writing advice
• Academic integrity and avoiding plagiarism (Northwestern WCAS)
• Grammar and punctuation
• Analytical writing
• Research papers
• Graphics and visuals
• Conferences
• Peer editing sheets for drafts
• Peer feedback form literature seminar
• Peer review Asian diaspora freshman seminar
• Research draft peer review
• Research paper introduction peer response
• Research paper peer evaluation of claims
• Peer editing science papers
• Getting the most out of peer reviews
• Peer review guidelines for a personal essay
• Writing assignments
• Freshman seminar award essays
• Useful links with writing advice
• Grading criteria
• Global Health
• Writing in the Humanities
• Science Writing
• Social Science Writing
• Writing for Graduate or Professional School
• Writing Advice for International Students
• Faculty-Only Resources

Peer editing

Peer editing can be done during class time or electronically outside of class, as the documents below--from Northwestern instructors--illustrate.  The questions that students respond to can vary according to the nature of the assignment and the purpose of the peer review.

peer editing sheets for drafts Peer editing sheets for two essay assignments in a freshman seminar.  Providing very specific questions helps the editors give useful feedback and suggestions. 

peer feedback form literature seminar Students exchange drafts in class, complete the peer feedback form, and then discuss their written comments with one another.  Students submit the forms with their drafts so that I can read them.  I frequently refer to their peers' comments when I am writing my own comments on their drafts.   

peer review Asian diaspora freshman seminar Students do a close reading of one another's drafts to provide insight into what has and has not been conveyed by the draft.

research draft peer review Prompts peer reviewers to comment on key pieces of information, logical organization, and conclusion

research paper introduction peer response Prompts peer editor to comment on introduction, and prompts author to respond to those comments

research paper peer evaluation of claims Prompts peer editor to evaluate the paper's effectiveness in supporting claims and addressing counter-arguments

peer editing science papers Prompts peer editor to complete a checklist on the paper's content, structure, and grammar

getting the most out of peer reviews A link to NU's Writing Place that explains how to make sure you benefit from sharing your writing with peers

peer review guidelines for a personal essay These guidelines from a freshman seminar are aimed at pairs of students who are exchanging drafts before meeting individually with the instructor. 

• Contact Northwestern University
• Campus Emergency Information
• University Policies

Northwestern University Library | 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston, IL 60208-2300 |  Phone: 847.491.7658  |  Fax: 847.491.8306  |  Email: [email protected]

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Editing & Proofreading

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

This resource covers process and strategy, not correctness rules. For help there, see our many resources on grammar,    mechanics ,  and punctuation .

There are multiple levels of editing, and terminology surrounding editing is often used interchangeably and fluidly. These levels have some overlap between each other, rather than being totally discrete stages; similarly, developmental and substantive editing are more closely related to the "revision" step of the writing process. The four editing levels are:

• Developmental editing: looking at the overall development of the piece, for instance looking for organizational patterns, missing information, inaccurate information, or anything that might confuse a reader
• Substantive editing: making changes to ensure sections (all the way down to paragraphs and sentences) flow logically from one to the next, ensure each paragraph's topic sentence is present and accurate, adding new necessary material to make connections between ideas, removing unnecessary material
• Copyediting: addressing sentence level issues such as style inconsistencies, subject-verb agreement, confusing or wordy phrasing, missing words, missing or inaccurate citations, and any other mechanical or grammatical issues that may be present
• Proofreading: usually the "last pass" before submission or publication; ensuring everything is correct and no lingering errors such as typos, missing words, missing punctuation, etc. remain.

In general, writers should follow this list down in order when revising and editing, from higher order to lower order concerns (in other words, from bigger or more impactful issues to smaller and less impactful issues).

While many writers edit alone at some point during the process, many writers also edit with a partner or writing group. Working with others is strongly recommended when editing; typically, this stage of the writing process comes last or close to last, meaning that writers are more likely to overlook mistakes or potential opportunities (because they have been working on the text for so long). It can be hard for writers to imagine other possibilities beyond what they have already written. A partner or group brings fresh perspective and a real audience who can offer feedback and tell the writer more about what it's like to read their writing. 

If you're intrigued by the idea of a writing group but not sure where to start, you might check out these resources: 

• OWL Vidcast: Writing Groups & How to Form Them
• Writing Groups Toolkit from University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill

Editing Before Submission

When you're ready to edit, it's important to start with higher order concerns and move down to lower order concerns (as stated above). For higher order concerns, see the editing and revision tips on our Organization and Structure page. For lower order concerns (and sometimes higher order concerns — you might realize something about organization while reading carefully for sentence level issues!), here's a list of strategies that our tutors recommend in sessions with graduate writers. They're usually adaptable to different preferences you might have about working digitally vs. on paper, or working alone vs. with a partner or group. Be creative to find what works for you!

• Read aloud. You can do this yourself, get your computer to read your text out, or ask a friend. Hearing your writing read aloud can help identify places where sentences are confusing or difficult to read, highlight missing words, and create some distance between you and your writing so you can more easily evaluate it.
• Color code. You might do this by highlighting or changing font colors on your screen, using markers on paper, or even without color using font styles and sizes. This technique is useful for various applications, including identifying parts of sentences, identifying particular words or phrases you repeat often, or categorizing sentences by idea to check organization.
• Pick individual issues. When you read through with your focus on only one thing, like correcting comma errors or looking for all the places you write "the ways in which," you're less likely to miss instances of that error by getting distracted with other issues.
• Use checklists. Venues such as journals and conferences often have checklists for authors to use when preparing manuscripts; if you don't have a checklist from a professor, you can sometimes use these checklists to help guide your editing for writing for courses as well. You can also keep a checklist of known issues that your writing partners, professors, tutors, or mentors have mentioned on previous writing assignments to help you look for things you know you do (for instance, one former tutor always put her topic sentences at the ends of paragraphs — she keeps this item in a revision and editing checklist and it's one of the first things she addresses when she edits).

Editing with Feedback

Often, graduate students will be writing or editing with some type of feedback. This could be from peers in a class, from an instructor or mentor, or from a peer reviewer at a conference or journal. If you're in this situation, please see our resources on writing with feedback for more strategies and tips.

• Our Mission

A Framework for Teaching Students How to Peer Edit

Giving meaningful feedback on a peer’s work doesn’t come naturally to students. Try these tips to help students hone their editing skills.

Too often, asking students to edit each other’s writing results in superficial commentary. Many students are uncertain about how to provide meaningful feedback on a peer’s work. 

One way to make peer review more effective is by scaffolding it, or breaking down the practice into several classes where students critique each other’s work in a more focused, incremental manner. Scaffolding allows students to identify and address a single type of error in an allotted time period. While it is a valuable process for all students, it is especially useful for English-language learners and learning-support students, who benefit from breaking tasks and information into more manageable components. 

Deconstruct Constructive Criticism

Students need to learn how to give and receive criticism in a productive and respectful manner. Before embarking on a class-wide peer review activity, teachers might underscore the importance of responses that are forthright and civil. Mastering the art of giving valuable feedback that doesn’t offend will benefit students in nearly every professional and personal relationship they maintain. 

Start by breaking down the two words: constructive and criticism . What do these words mean by themselves? What synonyms might apply to each word? Ask students to think of examples of ways they might offer constructive criticism on a peer’s writing. They can be as simple as “Remember to capitalize proper nouns” or “Restate your thesis in your final paragraph.” Underscore to students that the criticism must be specific and helpful. “Good job!” doesn’t suffice. Write their responses on one or two poster boards, and place them where students can see them and refer back to them throughout the process. 

Provide samples of criticism for students to emulate. You may want to advise learners to attach positive feedback with constructive criticism. For example, “Your hook poses a good question, but it contains several grammar errors” or “You inserted this quotation correctly.” 

As there is no definitive guide to constructive criticism, teachers and students are encouraged to discuss what constitutes responsible feedback to find a definition and standards that best suit the class.

Set Clear Plans

In the same way that instruction often demands that educators create the assessment first, teachers should prepare for the peer review at the beginning of any writing assignment. A scaffolded peer review can be time-consuming, so consider the length of the writing assignment to be assessed when making a determination about the class time required. 

Before assigning writing, consider what writing skills you want your students to learn, review, or practice. The objectives will vary by class, and they should be articulated to students from the outset. Some teachers may have the class focus on writing an effective thesis, incorporating quotations, or adding in-text citations. In other classes, the objective may be reviewing capitalization or comma usage. Identify the skills that students are expected to practice writing and finding in each other’s papers.

Facilitate the Process

Scaffolding the peer review provides an opportunity for students to read a piece multiple times to assess different elements of writing. First the class reviews the objective as a whole group. Then peer pairs review their individual writing with a focus on the defined learning objective. 

Some students may be reluctant to criticize peers’ work. Consider choosing peer-review partners instead of letting the students pick. This might cut down on students’ being fearful of offending their friends. Also, if the debrief period is generating little discussion, ask students to debrief with their partners as opposed to in front of the class. Give students a set of debrief prompts to focus their discussion, such as “Discuss the corrections you made.” 

Encourage students to refer to the posters regarding constructive criticism examples, especially if someone has given an impolite criticism. 

Debrief as a Class

After the pair reviews, debrief by discussing the findings as a class. The debrief can be an open-ended session in which the teacher encourages students to ask questions and voice misunderstandings about both writing and critiquing. The debrief can also be more structured and incorporate specific questions, such as “What is a challenge an editor or peer reviewer might face?” or “What is one element of your writing you wish to improve upon?” The debrief can also take the form of a small writing assignment, such as a reflective paragraph on the peer review process in which students summarize what they have learned as an editor and proofreader.

We want our students to be proficient writers and thinkers. Reviewing a peer’s work can help young people better understand the often difficult process of writing by challenging them to adopt a dynamic new role as critic.

Miss Becca's Classroom

Peer editing checklists: a game-changer for the writing classroom.

Ever had your students swap papers for peer editing or revisions, only to have the feedback go no deeper than, “I like your work because the picture is so colorful”? Enter the student-friendly peer editing checklist – it’s like a treasure map for finding the golden nuggets in writing (and the not-so-shiny bits that could use a polish.) It’s a great way to get kids thinking about the things that make good writing good , and the fixes that make less-strong writing stronger.

What is a Peer Editing Checklist?

Think of a peer editing checklist as a roadmap that lets students know exactly what they should be looking for in a classmate’s writing.

Different grade levels will need different versions, but a good peer editing checklist will often include reminders like checking for those sneaky capital letters that so often go AWOL, hunting down the punctuation that plays hide and seek, and giving a thumbs up or some friendly advice on what’s great and what’s not in the writing piece.

A good peer editing checklist should also be kid-friendly – the language on the checklist shouldn’t be ten times more complex than the language in the writing piece itself!

Why Use Peer Editing Checklists?

• Keeps the Eyes on the Prize : The checklist keeps kiddos zeroed in on what to look for, so they don’t end up just praising the cool handwriting.
• No More Guesswork : It lays out all the things they should comment on, clear as day.
• Fair’s Fair : Makes sure everyone’s writing gets the same eagle-eyed treatment.
• Brain Gains : Kids get to flex their thinking muscles by playing detective with their buddy’s work.
• Teamwork Makes the Dream Work : It’s all about working together to make those writing pieces shine.
• Taking Charge : Students often up their game when they know a classmate will be peeking at their paper.
• Level Up Writing Skills : Regular swapping and reviewing can lead to a class full of word wizards.

Making Peer Editing Checklists Work for Your Classroom

Show and tell.

First, walk your students through the checklist. Talk through each item on the checklist, and discuss why it’s important.

Practice Run

Do a mock edit together. Grab a piece of writing, project it up on the board, and let the class have at it, checklist in hand. I always tell students to read the whole piece through for every single checklist item. So, if the first thing on the checklist is looking for capital letters, we read the whole piece and only correct capital letters. Then we do it again, looking for punctuation. Etc., etc., until everything on the checklist has that friendly little checkmark next to it.

Buddy System

Pair up the students and let them have a go. You can do homogenous or heterogenous pairing, but for the first run I often like to pair students with similar writing levels. This way, both students in the pair will feel like they really have something to contribute. Encourage students to be kind but honest – it’s all in the name of making the writing better, after all.

Reflection Time

Once the editing’s done, get your students to reflect. What did they learn? Did they spot similar issues in their own work?

Feedback Fiesta

Make peer editing a celebration, not a chore. When they’ve done a solid job giving feedback, let them know it’s a big deal! After all, giving constructive feedback is something that many adults even struggle to do!

Watch Out: Common Pitfalls of Peer Editing (And How to Dodge Them)

Peer editing is like navigating through a jungle gym – it’s a blast, but you gotta watch where you’re stepping. Here are some common slip-ups that can happen and how to swing past them:

1. The “Nice Job!” Trap

We’ve all seen it – the peer editing process is complete, and only compliments have been given. Super sweet, but not super helpful. If you have students who are hesitant to actually edit their peers work, sometimes some special writing tools can help. Colored pencils, colored pens… let students use these to mark up their classmates’ work. You can even have a different color assigned for each checklist item. The first draft may come away looking messy, but isn’t that really the goal?

2. The Overwhelm

Sometimes a checklist can look like a to-do list that never ends, and students might just shut down. To avoid this, break it down as a whole group before sending them off to edit. Show them how to tackle one item at a time, so they don’t feel like they’re trying to juggle while balancing books on their heads.

If you find that your students are still struggling, take a step back. Choose one checklist item to really focus on for the day.

You can also differentiate peer editing checklists by just chopping off sections of some of them. Some students might be working with the whole checklist, and others just have one or two items to be on the looking for.

3. The Harsh Critic

There’s always that one student who fancies themselves the Simon Cowell of writing. To prevent any tears or crumpled papers, chat about constructive criticism. If you foresee this being a problem, maybe even role-play on how to deliver the “tough love” in a way that’s more love, less tough.

4. The Rush Job

Time’s ticking, and suddenly, peer editing turns into a race. Slow it down by drawing positive attention to the students who are really taking their time! I like to start the process by letting students know that in my past experience as a teacher, those who take the most time to edit usually do the best job. Then, as students are working, I’m constantly calling out, “Wow, Jayden hasn’t even checked off the first item yet. He must be doing a super thorough job. Thanks, Jayden!”

5. The “What Did I Just Read?”

Confusion can set in, especially with younger students or those who really struggle with writing. If a student doesn’t understand their peer’s writing, have them ask their peer to tell them what they meant to say. Most students are clearly able to explain their intentions orally. Then, the duo can work together to get the writing on paper, in a brand new draft if necessary.

Ready to Try Peer Editing Checklists in Your Classroom?

Peer editing with checklists is like giving students a map, a compass, and a pat on the back before they set off on an adventure. I have peer editing checklists available for every grade level from 2nd grade through high school! They’re designed to meet each grade level’s specific standards for writing and editing. Check them out:

• 2 nd grade peer editing checklist
• Peer editing checklist for 3 rd grade, 4 th grade, & 5 th grade
• Peer editing checklist for 6 th grade, 7 th grade, & 8 th grade
• High school peer editing checklist

You might also be interested in: Using poems to improve reading fluency Teaching word problems with tape diagrams

Peer Review Checklist

Janelle schwartz, english 201.

This is to give you an idea of the type of things you should be looking for and accomplishing in both your own paper and that of your peer(s). Use what follows as a kind of checklist for determining what is working effectively in a paper and what is not.

Introduction

Has the writer (either yourself or your classmate) clearly expressed the question (major claim, thesis) that he/she has selected to analyze? What is that question?

Is there any unnecessary information included in the introduction?

Having read the entire essay, suggest an alternate way to begin the essay.

Having read the entire essay, does the introduction fit the paper?

What are the main points that are being made in each paragraph? Briefly outline the point of each paragraph and sketch the evidence given in support for each.

How is the evidence linked to the main point of the paragraph? And to the main point of the essay?

Is there any unnecessary information throughout the body of the paper, such as plot summary, excessive quotation,

or unsupported claims?

Has the writer restated (not simply repeated) the major claim of the paper in light of its discussion throughout the paper? In other words, what should the reader have learned by the end of the argument?

What is your understanding of the initial question after reading the paper? Has this understanding been adequately expressed? And does it open up the major claim to the question of its implications? (Has this major claim ultimately been placed into a broader perspective or context?)

Suggest an alternate ending to the argument. General/Misc

Suggest an alternate title. Does it express “in a nutshell” the essay’s theme? Has it followed the proper “title: subtitle” format? [Note: This assumes the paper already has a title—thus, every paper must have a title!]

What confuses you about the draft? (For example, a certain word choice, the topic and/or its presentation, the explanation of something in particular.)

Does the flow of the essay break down at any point? In other words, does the essay become hard to read or lose its coherence? Where? And how might you fix it?

Does the essay remain within the chosen text(s)? If there are any generalizations, speculations, clichés, idiomatic expressions, or colloquialisms, underline them so that you can point them out to your peer(s).

What has the writer done well in his/her essay? Provide positive comments about the strength(s) of the essay.

Peer Edit With Perfection: Effective Strategies

• Resources & Preparation
• Instructional Plan
• Related Resources

Do students' eyes glaze over when they try to edit their own writing? Give them a fresh perspective with peer editing. Students are introduced to a three-step strategy for peer editing, providing (1) compliments, (2) suggestions, and (3) corrections in response to a sample of student writing. They practice these steps in a small-group session and share the results with the class. Then they move to individual editing practice guided by a PowerPoint tutorial and accompanying worksheet. This series of practice activities prepares students to engage in constructive peer editing of classmates' written work on a regular basis.

Featured Resources

• Peer Edit with Perfection! tutorial : Individual students can use the Peer Edit with Perfection! tutorial for a step-by-step practice session on peer editing strategies
• Peer Edit with Perfection! worksheet : The accompanying worksheet provides more practice with the Peer Edit with Perfection! tutorial.

From Theory to Practice

• Writing and revising in the classroom often involves peer discussion, whether in a one-to-one or group setting.
• Editing is an arduous and unwelcome task for many students; peer editing can improve students' interest in and enthusiasm for the revision stage of the writing process.

Common Core Standards

This resource has been aligned to the Common Core State Standards for states in which they have been adopted. If a state does not appear in the drop-down, CCSS alignments are forthcoming.

State Standards

This lesson has been aligned to standards in the following states. If a state does not appear in the drop-down, standard alignments are not currently available for that state.

NCTE/IRA National Standards for the English Language Arts

• 4. Students adjust their use of spoken, written, and visual language (e.g., conventions, style, vocabulary) to communicate effectively with a variety of audiences and for different purposes.
• 6. Students apply knowledge of language structure, language conventions (e.g., spelling and punctuation), media techniques, figurative language, and genre to create, critique, and discuss print and nonprint texts.
• 11. Students participate as knowledgeable, reflective, creative, and critical members of a variety of literacy communities.
• 12. Students use spoken, written, and visual language to accomplish their own purposes (e.g., for learning, enjoyment, persuasion, and the exchange of information).

Materials and Technology

• Computers with Internet access and PowerPoint software
• Overhead projector (optional)
• Peer Edit with Perfection! tutorial
• Peer Edit with Perfection! answer key
• Peer Edit with Perfection! handout
• Peer Edit with Perfection! worksheet
• Sample student work-5 points
• Sample student work-4 points

Preparation

Student objectives.

Students will

• Learn the definition of peer editing
• Understand and apply a three-step peer-editing process
• Peer edit sample student writing in a whole-group, small-group, and individual setting
• Use their knowledge of peer editing to develop a peer-editing assessment tool

Peer Editing as a Whole Class

Peer editing in small groups, individual peer-editing practice.

• Have students practice their skills by peer editing a piece written by a classmate. Implement and instill the peer-editing technique by having students edit their classmates' written pieces on a regular basis.
• Have students teach a fellow class to peer edit using the information they learned in this lesson.

Student Assessment / Reflections

• Review the Peer Edit with Perfection! worksheets completed during the PowerPoint tutorial. Assess using the answer key .

Start by asking students what they need to remember about the first step—compliments. Guide the class to create one or two checklist items related to compliments. Some ideas might include, "I gave the author of this piece at least two compliments" or "I was specific about what I liked about this piece of writing." Record these student-generated checklist items on the board or on chart paper. Move through the other two steps of peer editing (suggestions and corrections) and generate several other checklist items. Some ideas might include, "I gave the author detailed suggestions about how to improve this piece of writing" or "I marked all the spelling and grammar errors that I saw in this piece of writing." Once students have generated six to seven checklist items, record and type them up. Have students use the checklist as an assessment tool for future peer-editing sessions.

• Strategy Guides
• Lesson Plans

This strategy guide explains the writing process and offers practical methods for applying it in your classroom to help students become proficient writers.

Students are encouraged to understand a book that the teacher reads aloud to create a new ending for it using the writing process.

While drafting a literary analysis essay (or another type of argument) of their own, students work in pairs to investigate advice for writing conclusions and to analyze conclusions of sample essays. They then draft two conclusions for their essay, select one, and reflect on what they have learned through the process.

Add new comment

• Print this resource

Explore Resources by Grade

• Kindergarten K

Peer editing in the classroom: A creative approach (Part 1)

What is Peer Editing and Why Use It?

Peer editing , defined for a classroom context, is a process in which students or learners take on the role of the teacher in order to check or comment on work produced by another student or learner. It can take the form of checklists, written critiques, verbal conferencing, or a combination thereof.

The obvious advantages to peer editing have made it an increasingly popular teaching strategy in classrooms from elementary schools to universities. Large class sizes and increased instructor workloads often make it difficult for instructors to give detailed feedback on every piece of work that a student produces; looking to students themselves as valuable resources for response and critique makes a lot of sense.

As well, any instructor who has asked students to edit their own work with a mind to revision knows that there is often great resistance to self-editing. This is by no means limited to students—we all find it difficult to look at our own work objectively, and many of us are reluctant to revisit work that we feel is “done.” Peer editing not only allows the writer to see the work through another person’s eyes, it develops the collaborative skills that often go into creating a project or book or product in a “real-world” context.

Who I Am and What I Offer

I’ve taught creative writing in high schools, public workshops, and university classrooms across Canada, and I’ve and mentored individual writers through both writer-in-residence programs and private consultations. I am also, though, an editor of books of fiction and non-fiction, and it’s my editing practise that has made me look at the process of peer editing in a new way.

In over ten years of professional editing, during which time I’ve worked with everyone from beginning writers to Governor General’s Award‒winners, I’ve developed a keen appreciation for how challenging editing is. Engaging with another person’s work, whether it be an engineer’s process description, a fellow teacher’s lesson plan, or a short story about colonizing Saturn, calls for a level of concentration and analysis that few other of our endeavours require. When you add responsibility to that engagement—you are the editor paid by the publishing house to guide the writer to the best possible version of her work; you are the classroom instructor tasked with critiquing and evaluating a student’s essay; or you are the student asked to give feedback on the work of a peer—the level of engagement is even higher. Putting ourselves through the paces of editing another’s work is one of the most rigorous ways of using our skill sets and brain power, and one of the most effective ways of learning new things. Conversely, getting detailed feedback about a piece of writing from an attentive, engaged reader is the best way to find out whether that piece is communicating what we wish it to. It is, as we say, “writing gold.”

Peer Editing in the Classroom

As soon as you sit down to design a rubric for assessing student writing, you come face to face with the sheer number and variety of criteria involved—everything from the minutiae of spelling and grammar to the “big-picture” exigencies of clarity, concision, and persuasion. It’s little wonder that students can find it overwhelming to edit their own work, and that they need concrete guidance when tasked with critiquing the work of others.

I will discuss a few different approaches to peer editing, but first, a caveat: a peer-editing session is not a vacation for the instructor. Yes, as mentioned, it can be an effective way of managing large classes: it often isn’t possible, as an instructor, to read and respond immediately to each piece of writing a student produces, and so in a class where students are asked to produce writing often (an approach I applaud), peer review can increase the number and immediacy of responses a writer receives. But the instructor should be an active participant in the peer editing process at every stage, from modelling effective critiquing methods before the peer review even begins, to monitoring and commenting upon the review once it’s in process. Take this summation of a three-week peer-review of a formal paper assignment, from Melissa Trombo:

I ask students to turn in a draft for peer review during the first week. I ask students to bring two copies of their drafts so that during the class session I can do my first read of their work. This allows me to answer any immediate questions that come up during peer reviews or address concerns they want to begin working on right away. I provide detailed student feedback in the second week. I have a larger class discussion with the students about patterns I see in the writing so that we can have an open dialogue and share concerns. The final draft is due in the third week. Students are asked to submit the original draft, my comments, both peer reviews and their final draft. This way I can evaluate the process from top to bottom. For instance, if both peer reviewers and I suggest a revision to the introduction, I will expect a student to address this concern. In reviewing feedback, I encourage students to listen to their peers and to my feedback but ultimately to make their own decisions about how they want to revise their essays. The grade I assign is an assessment of where each essay is in relation to the progress I think it should make in the class. [1]

Whew, right? But this is actually a realistic description of the planning and time it takes to use peer reviewing/editing effectively. Students should not be expected to write and critique in a vacuum; as valuable as their fresh perspectives on each others’ work are, the instructor should plan to be constantly involved as a guide and as assessor. Both the writer and the peer editor should be held accountable for their work—in fact, that accountability is one of the great advantages of using peer review with your students.

The peer editing model of workshopping writing, by breaking students into pairs or small groups rather than using the “around-the-table” model of workshopping a piece with the entire class, does allow for reviewers to spend more time reading, editing, and critiquing a given piece. As a result, the peer editing process can be more detailed, accurate, and in-depth than the full-class workshopping model allows. Students have time to truly engage with one another’s work, discuss their points of view in detail, and respond to each other’s reactions. And, not least, they have more time to actually read the piece of writing in class. Remember that what you devote class time to as an instructor sends a strong message to your students about what kinds of learning and practises are valued. By allotting significant class time to reading and writing, you are signalling that these are activities that are valued and rewarded in the world.

That said, be realistic about what you hope to accomplish in a peer editing session. Students can easily feel overwhelmed by the responsibilities they’re given in this process, and it’s important not to overload them. You will need to carefully consider the amount of class time you’ll have for a specific activity, and tailor your instructions and, if using, checklists accordingly. Speaking of which…

To Checklist or Not To Checklist

That, if not the question, is certainly a big one.

First, let me give you a couple of examples. This first one is a bare-bones writing checklist suitable for students in grades 3‒5. (Note: I’ve adapted these examples from an amalgam of open-learning online resources, tweaking them here and there. For example, the edict about the dictionary under “Spelling” on this one is my own addition—take it from a seasoned editor: the dictionary is one of the most underrated (and, sadly, underused) resources around.

I like the Self- and Peer-Editors’ Checklist because it is clear and easy to use, and has a finite, manageable number of items. Ideally, the teacher will have the writer and peer editor fill out their checklists separately, then they will get together to talk over the similarities and differences in their results. Ideally, too, the teacher will allot enough time for each stage of this process (reading, rereading, filling out the checklist, exchanging results, discussion, and teacher participation in/feedback on the discussion). Remember, even at this simple a level, reading and editing takes significant time!

Like any resource, this checklist can and should be adapted with your particular learners’ needs and focus in mind. Categories could, for example, be geared toward high school or undergraduate essay writing in any subject, and include such areas as a clearly stated thesis, appropriate use of paragraphing,  detail and support for topic sentences, subject-specific vocabulary, and sentence clarity and variety.

Next, let’s look at a very different approach. The Peer-Edit Response Form is also modelled for younger learners, but can easily be adapted for any level and context. The focus here is on more subjective questions rather than mechanics, and admittedly it probably can’t properly be called a “checklist” at all.

This kind of open-ended checklist can be adapted to any context, including for complex projects and graduate-level and professional writers. A peer-editing checklist for an engineering and design course might include categories like the readability or relevance of charts and diagrams, the clear and parallel listing of materials to be used, and the accuracy of equations. A checklist for a student-teacher’s lesson plan could well ask, “Have the lesson outcomes been written in terms that are observable and measurable?” and “Could the lesson plan be easily understood by a substitute teacher?”

Clicking through the riot of peer-editing checklists that are available online can be a bit of a maddening exercise because of their sheer volume and variety. But for me, the value of these existing tools is not so much how useful they are in themselves, but in how reading them sparks ideas for better questions or, at least, ones more specifically geared to your particular students’ needs. Once you get started on planning your assessment rubric, checklist or no, you’ll realize that identifying categories is (at least relatively) the easy part. The hard part, and the important part, is making them work in a classroom setting. More on that to follow. In the appendix to this document, I’ve included a “Revision Checklist” that I’ve used with my creative writing classes—you are welcome to use it or adapt it for your own writing, revising, or teaching purposes. If you do give it to students, again I suggest you tailor it to the specific student or class you’re giving it to; some of the items on the list may well need tweaking or omitting according to their needs (and your philosophy!), and you may have ideas for others. I make it a rule to never use a handout with a class (even my own) unless I’ve gone over it anew and adapted it to that class specifically.

Above all, remember that teaching any kind of writing, like writing itself, is a creative process. So, too, should be your approach to peer editing. A student in a workshop I recently gave asked me, “How do you determine the line between leaving creative writing open and authentic while still providing enough guidance for [students] to succeed?” I told her, honestly, that I didn’t have an answer to that excellent question, but that we should strive, as educators, to keep that tension always in mind. It’s a tension that I think applies to any discipline of study: creative thinking is just as important in nursing or business management as it is in English or creative writing; so, too, are the clear parameters that allow us to make honest and useful assessments of student work. Developing a peer editing practise in your classroom can help both you and your students address the tension between the freedom to create and the need to refine and revise in practical and meaningful ways.

Cartoon Credits

• Cullum, Leo. “Never, ever think outside the box.” The New Yorker , November 30, 1998.
• Twohy, Mike. “Overuse of the Exclamation Point.” The New Yorker , April 15, 2019.
• Wheeler, Shannon. “’‘Grrr’ is not a word.” The New Yorker , July 2, 2012.

[1] Trombo, Melissa. “Workshop and Peer Review Process” in “Teaching Autoethnography: Personal Writing in the Classroom.” https://milnepublishing.geneseo.edu/teaching-autoethnography/chapter/4-workshop-and-peer-review-process/. Accessed February 5, 2020.

Melanie Little

Melanie Little is an award-winning author and editor of fiction and non-fiction. As the inaugural editor of Calgary’s Freehand Books, she was awarded the Book Publishers’ Association of Alberta’s Lois Hole Award for Editorial Excellence, and under her direction Freehand was named BPAA’s Publisher of the Year and was a finalist for Small Press Publisher of the Year at the Canadian Booksellers’ Association Libris Awards. Subsequently she was the Senior Editor of Canadian Fiction at House of Anansi Press, where she edited authors including Lisa Moore, Rawi Hage, Sheila Heti, Pasha Malla, Patrick deWitt, and Lynn Coady. Books she has edited have won the Giller Prize, the Governor General’s Award, the Commonwealth Writers’ Prize, the Quebec Writers’ Federation Prize for Fiction, and the Writers’ Trust Fiction Prize, and have twice been finalists for Canada Reads. She is currently a freelance editor in Toronto, editing fiction and non-fiction for clients including Coach House Books, McClelland and Stewart, Doubleday Canada, and House of Anansi Press.

Melanie has taught creative writing at Dalhousie University, the University of Alberta, and at workshops across Canada. Her debut collection of stories, Confidence, was shortlisted for the Danuta Gleed Award and selected as a Globe and Mail Top 100 Book. Her novel-in-verse for young adults, The Apprentice’s Masterpiece, was a Canadian Library Association Honour Book, a gold medalist at the Independent Publisher Book Awards, and a White Raven selection for the International Youth Library in Munich. She is currently writing a novel for which she has received funding support from the Canada Council for the Arts, the Ontario Arts Council, and the Toronto Arts Council. She holds an Master of Fine Arts in creative writing from the University of British Columbia and a Master of Arts in English literature from the University of Toronto.

• Melanie Little https://teach-learn.ca/author/mlittle/ Peer editing in the classroom: A creative approach (Part 2)
• Melanie Little https://teach-learn.ca/author/mlittle/ Peer editing in the classroom: A creative approach (Q&A)

Placemaking

Peer editing in the classroom: a creative approach (part 2), you may also like.

• Learning from the Teach-in: From the margins to creating space for mental illness in higher education

• Critical review: Assumptions of digital literacy

Trauma-informed pedagogies in higher education

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

More in Faculty

Classroom Mapping

3M National Student Fellowship: How can you help support a student win this prestigious award

Navigating Brightspace: A student’s guide to success

Recent posts.

• Waawiiatanong Forever
• Faculty Spotlight: Andrew Allen
• Faculty Spotlight: Drew Marquardt

Recent Comments

• stephen doxtator on Conversations with Milly: Apologies and reparations
• Jaimie Kechego on Conversations with Milly
• Jaimie on Conversations with Milly
• Vicky Paraschak on Conversations with Milly
• Simon du Toit on Best free video editing software
• Accessibility
• Brightspace
• CTL Workshop
• Faculty Spotlight
• GAs & TAs
• Indigenous Curriculum
• T&L Spaces
• Teaching Tech

Sign up for the CTL Newsletter

Email address:

Lost your password?

• Submit a Post

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts

Latest science news, discoveries and analysis

Could a rare mutation that causes dwarfism also slow ageing?

Bird flu in US cows: is the milk supply safe?

Future of Humanity Institute shuts: what's next for ‘deep future’ research?

Judge dismisses superconductivity physicist’s lawsuit against university

Nih pay raise for postdocs and phd students could have us ripple effect, hello puffins, goodbye belugas: changing arctic fjord hints at our climate future, china's moon atlas is the most detailed ever made, ‘shut up and calculate’: how einstein lost the battle to explain quantum reality, ecologists: don’t lose touch with the joy of fieldwork chris mantegna.

Should the Maldives be creating new land?

Lethal AI weapons are here: how can we control them?

Algorithm ranks peer reviewers by reputation — but critics warn of bias

How gliding marsupials got their ‘wings’

Bird flu virus has been spreading in us cows for months, rna reveals, audio long read: why loneliness is bad for your health, nato is boosting ai and climate research as scientific diplomacy remains on ice, rat neurons repair mouse brains — and restore sense of smell.

Retractions are part of science, but misconduct isn’t — lessons from a superconductivity lab

Any plan to make smoking obsolete is the right step

Citizenship privilege harms science

European ruling linking climate change to human rights could be a game changer — here’s how charlotte e. blattner, will ai accelerate or delay the race to net-zero emissions, current issue.

The Maldives is racing to create new land. Why are so many people concerned?

Surprise hybrid origins of a butterfly species, stripped-envelope supernova light curves argue for central engine activity, optical clocks at sea, research analysis.

Ancient DNA traces family lines and political shifts in the Avar empire

A chemical method for selective labelling of the key amino acid tryptophan

Robust optical clocks promise stable timing in a portable package

Targeting RNA opens therapeutic avenues for Timothy syndrome

Bioengineered ‘mini-colons’ shed light on cancer progression, galaxy found napping in the primordial universe, tumours form without genetic mutations, marsupial genomes reveal how a skin membrane for gliding evolved.

Scientists urged to collect royalties from the ‘magic money tree’

Breaking ice, and helicopter drops: winning photos of working scientists

Shrouded in secrecy: how science is harmed by the bullying and harassment rumour mill

Want to make a difference try working at an environmental non-profit organization, how ground glass might save crops from drought on a caribbean island, books & culture.

How volcanoes shaped our planet — and why we need to be ready for the next big eruption

Dogwhistles, drilling and the roots of Western civilization: Books in brief

Cosmic rentals

Las borinqueñas remembers the forgotten puerto rican women who tested the first pill, dad always mows on summer saturday mornings, nature podcast.

Latest videos

Nature briefing.

An essential round-up of science news, opinion and analysis, delivered to your inbox every weekday.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Main Navigation

• Contact NeurIPS
• Code of Ethics
• Code of Conduct
• Create Profile
• Journal To Conference Track
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Proceedings
• Future Meetings
• Exhibitor Information
• Privacy Policy

NeurIPS 2024

Conference Dates: (In person) 9 December - 15 December, 2024

Homepage: https://neurips.cc/Conferences/2024/

Call For Papers 

Author notification: Sep 25, 2024

Camera-ready, poster, and video submission: Oct 30, 2024 AOE

Submit at: https://openreview.net/group?id=NeurIPS.cc/2024/Conference  

The site will start accepting submissions on Apr 22, 2024 

Subscribe to these and other dates on the 2024 dates page .

The Thirty-Eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2024) is an interdisciplinary conference that brings together researchers in machine learning, neuroscience, statistics, optimization, computer vision, natural language processing, life sciences, natural sciences, social sciences, and other adjacent fields. We invite submissions presenting new and original research on topics including but not limited to the following:

• Applications (e.g., vision, language, speech and audio, Creative AI)
• Deep learning (e.g., architectures, generative models, optimization for deep networks, foundation models, LLMs)
• Evaluation (e.g., methodology, meta studies, replicability and validity, human-in-the-loop)
• General machine learning (supervised, unsupervised, online, active, etc.)
• Infrastructure (e.g., libraries, improved implementation and scalability, distributed solutions)
• Machine learning for sciences (e.g. climate, health, life sciences, physics, social sciences)
• Neuroscience and cognitive science (e.g., neural coding, brain-computer interfaces)
• Optimization (e.g., convex and non-convex, stochastic, robust)
• Probabilistic methods (e.g., variational inference, causal inference, Gaussian processes)
• Reinforcement learning (e.g., decision and control, planning, hierarchical RL, robotics)
• Social and economic aspects of machine learning (e.g., fairness, interpretability, human-AI interaction, privacy, safety, strategic behavior)
• Theory (e.g., control theory, learning theory, algorithmic game theory)

Machine learning is a rapidly evolving field, and so we welcome interdisciplinary submissions that do not fit neatly into existing categories.

Authors are asked to confirm that their submissions accord with the NeurIPS code of conduct .

Formatting instructions:   All submissions must be in PDF format, and in a single PDF file include, in this order:

• The submitted paper
• Technical appendices that support the paper with additional proofs, derivations, or results 
• The NeurIPS paper checklist  

Other supplementary materials such as data and code can be uploaded as a ZIP file

The main text of a submitted paper is limited to nine content pages , including all figures and tables. Additional pages containing references don’t count as content pages. If your submission is accepted, you will be allowed an additional content page for the camera-ready version.

The main text and references may be followed by technical appendices, for which there is no page limit.

The maximum file size for a full submission, which includes technical appendices, is 50MB.

Authors are encouraged to submit a separate ZIP file that contains further supplementary material like data or source code, when applicable.

You must format your submission using the NeurIPS 2024 LaTeX style file which includes a “preprint” option for non-anonymous preprints posted online. Submissions that violate the NeurIPS style (e.g., by decreasing margins or font sizes) or page limits may be rejected without further review. Papers may be rejected without consideration of their merits if they fail to meet the submission requiremhttps://www.overleaf.com/read/kcffhyrygkqc#85f742ents, as described in this document. 

Paper checklist: In order to improve the rigor and transparency of research submitted to and published at NeurIPS, authors are required to complete a paper checklist . The paper checklist is intended to help authors reflect on a wide variety of issues relating to responsible machine learning research, including reproducibility, transparency, research ethics, and societal impact. The checklist forms part of the paper submission, but does not count towards the page limit.

Supplementary material: While all technical appendices should be included as part of the main paper submission PDF, authors may submit up to 100MB of supplementary material, such as data, or source code in a ZIP format. Supplementary material should be material created by the authors that directly supports the submission content. Like submissions, supplementary material must be anonymized. Looking at supplementary material is at the discretion of the reviewers.

We encourage authors to upload their code and data as part of their supplementary material in order to help reviewers assess the quality of the work. Check the policy as well as code submission guidelines and templates for further details.

Use of Large Language Models (LLMs): We welcome authors to use any tool that is suitable for preparing high-quality papers and research. However, we ask authors to keep in mind two important criteria. First, we expect papers to fully describe their methodology, and any tool that is important to that methodology, including the use of LLMs, should be described also. For example, authors should mention tools (including LLMs) that were used for data processing or filtering, visualization, facilitating or running experiments, and proving theorems. It may also be advisable to describe the use of LLMs in implementing the method (if this corresponds to an important, original, or non-standard component of the approach). Second, authors are responsible for the entire content of the paper, including all text and figures, so while authors are welcome to use any tool they wish for writing the paper, they must ensure that all text is correct and original.

Double-blind reviewing:   All submissions must be anonymized and may not contain any identifying information that may violate the double-blind reviewing policy.  This policy applies to any supplementary or linked material as well, including code.  If you are including links to any external material, it is your responsibility to guarantee anonymous browsing.  Please do not include acknowledgements at submission time. If you need to cite one of your own papers, you should do so with adequate anonymization to preserve double-blind reviewing.  For instance, write “In the previous work of Smith et al. [1]…” rather than “In our previous work [1]...”). If you need to cite one of your own papers that is in submission to NeurIPS and not available as a non-anonymous preprint, then include a copy of the cited anonymized submission in the supplementary material and write “Anonymous et al. [1] concurrently show...”). Any papers found to be violating this policy will be rejected.

OpenReview: We are using OpenReview to manage submissions. The reviews and author responses will not be public initially (but may be made public later, see below). As in previous years, submissions under review will be visible only to their assigned program committee. We will not be soliciting comments from the general public during the reviewing process. Anyone who plans to submit a paper as an author or a co-author will need to create (or update) their OpenReview profile by the full paper submission deadline. Your OpenReview profile can be edited by logging in and clicking on your name in https://openreview.net/ . This takes you to a URL "https://openreview.net/profile?id=~[Firstname]_[Lastname][n]" where the last part is your profile name, e.g., ~Wei_Zhang1. The OpenReview profiles must be up to date, with all publications by the authors, and their current affiliations. The easiest way to import publications is through DBLP but it is not required, see FAQ . Submissions without updated OpenReview profiles will be desk rejected. The information entered in the profile is critical for ensuring that conflicts of interest and reviewer matching are handled properly. Because of the rapid growth of NeurIPS, we request that all authors help with reviewing papers, if asked to do so. We need everyone’s help in maintaining the high scientific quality of NeurIPS.  

Please be aware that OpenReview has a moderation policy for newly created profiles: New profiles created without an institutional email will go through a moderation process that can take up to two weeks. New profiles created with an institutional email will be activated automatically.

Venue home page: https://openreview.net/group?id=NeurIPS.cc/2024/Conference

If you have any questions, please refer to the FAQ: https://openreview.net/faq

Ethics review: Reviewers and ACs may flag submissions for ethics review . Flagged submissions will be sent to an ethics review committee for comments. Comments from ethics reviewers will be considered by the primary reviewers and AC as part of their deliberation. They will also be visible to authors, who will have an opportunity to respond.  Ethics reviewers do not have the authority to reject papers, but in extreme cases papers may be rejected by the program chairs on ethical grounds, regardless of scientific quality or contribution.  

Preprints: The existence of non-anonymous preprints (on arXiv or other online repositories, personal websites, social media) will not result in rejection. If you choose to use the NeurIPS style for the preprint version, you must use the “preprint” option rather than the “final” option. Reviewers will be instructed not to actively look for such preprints, but encountering them will not constitute a conflict of interest. Authors may submit anonymized work to NeurIPS that is already available as a preprint (e.g., on arXiv) without citing it. Note that public versions of the submission should not say "Under review at NeurIPS" or similar.

Dual submissions: Submissions that are substantially similar to papers that the authors have previously published or submitted in parallel to other peer-reviewed venues with proceedings or journals may not be submitted to NeurIPS. Papers previously presented at workshops are permitted, so long as they did not appear in a conference proceedings (e.g., CVPRW proceedings), a journal or a book.  NeurIPS coordinates with other conferences to identify dual submissions.  The NeurIPS policy on dual submissions applies for the entire duration of the reviewing process.  Slicing contributions too thinly is discouraged.  The reviewing process will treat any other submission by an overlapping set of authors as prior work. If publishing one would render the other too incremental, both may be rejected.

Anti-collusion: NeurIPS does not tolerate any collusion whereby authors secretly cooperate with reviewers, ACs or SACs to obtain favorable reviews. 

Author responses:   Authors will have one week to view and respond to initial reviews. Author responses may not contain any identifying information that may violate the double-blind reviewing policy. Authors may not submit revisions of their paper or supplemental material, but may post their responses as a discussion in OpenReview. This is to reduce the burden on authors to have to revise their paper in a rush during the short rebuttal period.

After the initial response period, authors will be able to respond to any further reviewer/AC questions and comments by posting on the submission’s forum page. The program chairs reserve the right to solicit additional reviews after the initial author response period.  These reviews will become visible to the authors as they are added to OpenReview, and authors will have a chance to respond to them.

After the notification deadline, accepted and opted-in rejected papers will be made public and open for non-anonymous public commenting. Their anonymous reviews, meta-reviews, author responses and reviewer responses will also be made public. Authors of rejected papers will have two weeks after the notification deadline to opt in to make their deanonymized rejected papers public in OpenReview.  These papers are not counted as NeurIPS publications and will be shown as rejected in OpenReview.

Publication of accepted submissions:   Reviews, meta-reviews, and any discussion with the authors will be made public for accepted papers (but reviewer, area chair, and senior area chair identities will remain anonymous). Camera-ready papers will be due in advance of the conference. All camera-ready papers must include a funding disclosure . We strongly encourage accompanying code and data to be submitted with accepted papers when appropriate, as per the code submission policy . Authors will be allowed to make minor changes for a short period of time after the conference.

Contemporaneous Work: For the purpose of the reviewing process, papers that appeared online within two months of a submission will generally be considered "contemporaneous" in the sense that the submission will not be rejected on the basis of the comparison to contemporaneous work. Authors are still expected to cite and discuss contemporaneous work and perform empirical comparisons to the degree feasible. Any paper that influenced the submission is considered prior work and must be cited and discussed as such. Submissions that are very similar to contemporaneous work will undergo additional scrutiny to prevent cases of plagiarism and missing credit to prior work.

Plagiarism is prohibited by the NeurIPS Code of Conduct .

Other Tracks: Similarly to earlier years, we will host multiple tracks, such as datasets, competitions, tutorials as well as workshops, in addition to the main track for which this call for papers is intended. See the conference homepage for updates and calls for participation in these tracks. 

Experiments: As in past years, the program chairs will be measuring the quality and effectiveness of the review process via randomized controlled experiments. All experiments are independently reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Financial Aid: Each paper may designate up to one (1) NeurIPS.cc account email address of a corresponding student author who confirms that they would need the support to attend the conference, and agrees to volunteer if they get selected. To be considered for Financial the student will also need to fill out the Financial Aid application when it becomes available.