Peer review benefits both the reviewer and the reviewed. Here are the things I learned and my own two cents on other people's work which I hope will be useful.
Kaczorowski, Jenny. "Red Pen" 7/23/12 via flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic.
Here are the two works I peer reviewed:
1) Ryan Wolfe's QRG on "Mitochondrial Replacement and 'three parent' babies" and the rubric
What I learned from the projects I reviewed:
I learned from Ryan Wolfe that the pictures in my QRG are a mess. I didn't integrate them into the text nearly as well as I could have. His QRG is very aesthetically pleasing while mine is more like word vomit with pictures sprinkled liberally on top. I learned from Benjamen Meyer how much of an effect imagery has on a reader'er experience. His extremely vivid imagery and dry wit made the read greatly enjoyable.
Top three issues with my QRG:
1) Aesthetics- I need to integrate the photos and quotes into the information
2) Organization- I need to make the different sections of my QRG more distinct with headings (which I realize I don't really have at all... oops)
3) Imagery- I should actually spend a lot of time on this because the setting of my controversy is supposed to be ridiculously beautiful (Mauna Kea)
Top three strengths of my QRG:
1) I have specific stakeholders- I need to organize them more though and add quotes more than the twitter posts I have.
2) I have effective pictures- Some are very emotional and others are just stunning. I should explain the pictures more to show the reader their relevance.
3) I represent all the sides equally and tried really hard not to have a bias. I think I was successful in that regard because I still can't decide which side I would have taken had I been part of the action.
No comments:
Post a Comment