Thursday, October 20, 2011

First Peer Review compared to Second Time

Well, even though I didn't like how much more effort I had to put into this review, I think it was more effective then the first time around. This time we had at least two other people reviewing our papers which allows for more depth in analysis. Also with two people there is different perspectives that give opportunity for more critique so that we can develop are papers more effectively. Having each of our groups papers allowed us to have time to read over a look with great intent on where we thought changes could be made. All-in-all I would say this time around was better then the first.


  1. I agree about the effort. I hate reading things that I'm not super interested it, and about a blog that I haven't even read before. Seems to drag on and on. Especially since I was trying to get it all in before going to bed.. at like 2 am. So hopefully my critiques made sense. But I agree with it all here.

  2. But wait was it the first of second time that you liked? The first wasn't the group critique. But you do make a good point that with two people we have many different view points.

  3. I had the same experience, completely. The first one was good, but the person did not even look at the paper, they just heard you read it. So, it could sound good, but look horrible on paper, you know?