Peer Review Best Practices

Why This Matters

Peer review isn't just a box to check before submitting your Individual Written Argument or Team Multimedia Presentation—it's a core skill that AP Seminar tests directly. You're being assessed on your ability to engage in iterative revision cycles, provide evidence-based feedback, and contribute meaningfully to collaborative dynamics. The exam evaluators want to see that you can think critically about arguments, identify gaps in reasoning, and help strengthen work through constructive dialogue—skills that mirror what scholars and professionals do in the real world.

The practices below demonstrate key course concepts: metacognitive reflection, formative feedback loops, psychological safety in teams, and the distinction between surface-level editing and substantive revision. Don't just memorize these as a checklist—understand what each practice accomplishes and why it matters for producing stronger academic work. When you give feedback, you're practicing the same analytical skills you'll need for your own writing.

---

Building a Foundation: Reading Before Responding

Effective peer review starts before you write a single comment. Rushing to critique without full comprehension leads to fragmented, unhelpful feedback that misses the author's actual intent.

Read the Entire Work First

• Comprehensive reading ensures you understand the author's line of reasoning—jumping to comments mid-read often results in critiques the author already addresses later
• Identify overarching themes before noting isolated issues; this mirrors the close reading strategies you use when analyzing sources
• Map the argument's structure mentally so your feedback addresses how parts connect to the whole, not just individual sentences

Follow the Provided Rubric or Guidelines

• Rubric alignment keeps feedback relevant to assessment criteria—your peer needs to know how their work measures against what evaluators will actually score
• Structured evaluation using provided guidelines prevents you from imposing personal preferences as universal standards
• Criterion-specific comments help authors prioritize revisions that will most impact their grade

---

Delivering Substantive Feedback: Content Over Surface

The most valuable peer review addresses the substance of an argument, not just grammar or formatting. Formative feedback loops work best when they target the ideas that matter most.

Address Content, Organization, and Clarity

• Evaluate the strength of the thesis and supporting evidence—does the argument actually prove what it claims?
• Assess logical flow by checking whether each paragraph builds on the previous one; flag gaps in the line of reasoning
• Note clarity issues that obscure meaning, distinguishing between confusing ideas and confusing sentences

Prioritize Major Issues Over Minor Details

• Focus on argument-level concerns first—a brilliant comma placement won't save a weak thesis
• Identify the two or three most critical areas that would transform the work if addressed; this reflects double-loop learning principles
• Save surface-level edits for later rounds of revision when the core argument is solid

Provide Evidence-Based Suggestions

• Ground your feedback in specific textual evidence—quote the passage you're addressing so the author knows exactly what you mean
• Reference relevant research or course concepts when suggesting improvements; this models the evidence-based reasoning the course emphasizes
• Explain the "why" behind suggestions so authors understand the principle, not just the fix

---

Fostering Growth: Constructive and Balanced Feedback

Peer review should motivate improvement, not discourage effort. Psychological safety in collaborative settings requires feedback that respects the author while challenging their work.

Focus on Both Strengths and Areas for Improvement

• Lead with what works well—identifying strengths helps authors understand what to preserve and build upon
• Balance positive reinforcement with constructive criticism to maintain motivation; this aligns with strengths-based contribution principles
• Be specific about strengths too—"good job" is less useful than "your use of the counterclaim in paragraph 3 strengthens your credibility"

Use Respectful and Professional Language

• Frame critiques as observations, not judgments—"this section could use more evidence" rather than "this section is weak"
• Employ nonviolent communication (NVC) principles by describing impact without attacking intent
• Maintain a collaborative tone that positions you as a partner in improvement, not an adversary

Ask Questions to Encourage Critical Thinking

• Pose genuine questions that prompt the author to reconsider assumptions—"Have you considered how opponents might respond to this claim?"
• Use Socratic questioning to guide authors toward their own insights rather than dictating solutions
• Challenge authors to explore alternative perspectives, which strengthens their ability to anticipate counterarguments

---

Maintaining Integrity: Professional Standards

Peer review operates on trust. Ethical collaboration requires boundaries that protect both the author's work and the reviewer's objectivity.

Be Objective and Avoid Personal Bias

• Evaluate the argument's quality, not whether you agree with its position—strong reasoning can support conclusions you personally reject
• Separate stylistic preferences from actual weaknesses; your way isn't the only effective way
• Check your assumptions about the topic to ensure feedback reflects the work's merit, not your prior beliefs

Maintain Confidentiality of the Work Reviewed

• Treat reviewed work as intellectual property that belongs to the author, not material for sharing or discussion outside the review context
• Avoid discussing specific content with others unless the author grants permission
• Build trust in the process by demonstrating that vulnerability in sharing drafts won't be exploited

Avoid Rewriting the Work; Instead, Offer Suggestions

• Preserve the author's voice and ownership—your job is to guide, not ghostwrite
• Suggest directions rather than dictating language; "consider adding a transition here" beats inserting your own sentence
• Empower authors to make their own choices about how to implement feedback, which develops their revision skills

---

Making Feedback Usable: Clarity and Timeliness

Even excellent insights fail if the author can't understand or act on them. Effective feedback is specific, actionable, and delivered when it can still make a difference.

Offer Specific and Constructive Comments

• Target particular passages, claims, or structural choices—vague feedback like "needs work" gives authors nothing to act on
• Provide clear examples of what enhancement looks like; "your evidence in paragraph 2 would be stronger with a direct quote" is actionable
• Explain the rationale so authors understand the principle behind your suggestion and can apply it elsewhere

Offer Actionable Recommendations

• Suggest concrete next steps the author can implement—"add a topic sentence to paragraph 4" is actionable; "improve flow" is not
• Focus on changes within the author's control given time and resource constraints
• Prioritize recommendations so authors know where to start if they can't address everything

Provide Timely Feedback

• Deliver feedback while revision is still possible—late comments, however brilliant, can't improve submitted work
• Allow sufficient processing time for authors to thoughtfully incorporate suggestions before deadlines
• Demonstrate commitment to the process by treating deadlines as seriously as you'd want your reviewers to treat yours

---

Thoroughness: Completing the Review

Partial reviews leave authors guessing about unaddressed sections. Comprehensive evaluation ensures no critical issues slip through.

Be Thorough and Comprehensive in Your Review

• Cover all major components—thesis, evidence, reasoning, organization, and conventions—even if some sections are stronger than others
• Note patterns across the work rather than just flagging individual instances; "evidence tends to be summarized rather than analyzed throughout" is more useful than marking each instance separately
• Provide a well-rounded evaluation that gives authors a complete picture of their work's current state

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Which two practices both protect the author's autonomy in different ways, and how do their protections differ?

2. A peer reviewer writes "This is confusing" on a paragraph without further explanation. Which two best practices does this violate, and how would you revise the comment to follow them?

3. Compare and contrast addressing content/organization/clarity with prioritizing major issues over minor details. When would you emphasize each approach?

4. If an FRQ asks you to describe how peer review contributes to iterative revision, which three practices would you cite as evidence, and what course concepts do they demonstrate?

5. Your peer's argument takes a position you strongly disagree with personally, but the reasoning is logically sound. Which practice guides your response, and what specific actions would you take to follow it?