Over the past 30 years, there has been little consensus on the benefits of peer review (PR) with respect to the teaching of expository writing in English to non-native speakers. Lu & Bol (2007) reported on several ESL writing instruction studies (Chaudron, 1983; Mangelsdorf, 1992; Paulus, 1999) that suggested peer feedback was as good as, and in some cases better than teacher feedback in helping revise and improve students' papers (p. 101). Brammer & Rees (2007), however, reported, "We frequently hear students complain bitterly that peer review is a waste of time or blame their peers for `not catching all the mistakes' and students do not stay on task during the peer review process" (p. 71). The literature also identifies social issues that can negatively affect the outcome of face-to-face PR, such as students being easily biased or not honest when providing feedback due to friendship, gender, race, interpersonal relationships, or personal preferences (Carson & Nelson, 1996; Ghorpade & Lackritz, 2001; MacLeod, 1999; Nilson, 2003; Zhao, 1998). To maximize the benefits of PR and reduce social interferences, this study incorporated anonymous electronic-peer review with 25 EFL students enrolled in an expository writing class in Spain. The goal of this dissertation is to explore the relationship between students' attitudes towards peer review and one) the amount and type of corrections a student makes to an essay in anonymous electronic-peer review, and two) the amount and type of corrections a student incorporates into his/her original essay after receiving feedback from a peer. The participants completed several Likert questionnaires, participated in PR training, wrote two drafts of an essay and were interviewed. The interviews provided data not only on the corrections mentioned above, but also how the participants viewed the experience, the effects PR had on their writing, insecurities about their English writing skills, and confidence they had in themselves and their peers based on perceived target language competence. Findings include discussion on perceptions and implications of electronic peer review on EFL learners' ability to provide helpful feedback and the willingness of the students to participate in peer review again in the future.

This study aimed at investigating the effects of peer review on young learners&#039 / writing, the students&#039 / attitude towards peer review and to see how close student grading is to teacher grading. The main purpose of the study was to determine if the students who received peer review on their writing and peer checked themselves would score better on a writing test as compared to those who did not but did self-checking only. For this purpose, 25 primary students (in the fourth grade) at Ihsan Dogramaci Foundation Bilkent Primary School participated in the study. The data were collected through quantitative and qualitative data collection instruments. The pre-test and post-test results provided the quantitative along with the student and teacher grading. The qualitative data came from the questionnaire distributed at the end of the study. The analysis of the quantitative data indicated that the students who received peer review on their writing and peer checked themselves did not score significantly different from the students who did not receive such a training. Significant difference was found however between the students&#039 / grading and the teacher&#039 / s. The analysis of the questionnaire data showed that the students enjoyed checking and grading their peer&#039 / s paper and learning their own mistakes during the process.

Thesis (Ph.D.) -- University of Western Sydney, 2003. / "A thesis submitted to the University of Western Sydney in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy" Bibliography : leaves 350-371.

Thesis (PhD (Public Affairs)) -- University of Pretoria, 2006. / Abstract in English. Includes bibliographical references. Available on the Internet via the World Wide Web.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Illinois State University, 2006. / Title from title page screen, viewed on June 8, 2007. Dissertation Committee: Janice Neuleib (chair), Ronald Fortune, Bob Broad. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 270-280) and abstract. Also available in print.

abstract: Writing scientific explanations is increasingly important, and today's students must have the ability to navigate the writing process to create a persuasive scientific explanation. One aspect of the writing process is receiving feedback before submitting a final draft. This study examined whether middle school students benefit more in the writing process from receiving peer feedback or teacher feedback on rough drafts of scientific explanations. The study also looked at whether males and females reacted differently to the treatment groups. And it examined if content knowledge and the written scientific explanations were correlated. The study looked at 38 sixth and seventh-grade students throughout a 7-week earth science unit on earth systems. The unit had six lessons. One lesson introduced the students to writing scientific explanations, and the other five were inquiry-based content lessons. They wrote four scientific explanations throughout the unit of study and received feedback on all four rough drafts. The sixth-graders received teacher feedback on each explanation and the seventh-graders received peer-feedback after learning how to give constructive feedback. The students also took a multiple-choice pretest/posttest to evaluate content knowledge. The analyses showed that there was no significant difference between the group receiving peer feedback and the group receiving teacher feedback on the final drafts of the scientific explanations. There was, however, a significant effect of practice on the scores of the scientific explanations. Students wrote significantly better with each subsequent scientific explanation. There was no significant difference between males and females based on the treatment they received. There was a significant correlation between the gain in pretest to posttest scores and the scientific explanations and a significant correlation between the posttest scores and the scientific explanations. Content knowledge and written scientific explanations are related. Students who wrote scientific explanations had significant gains in content knowledge. / Dissertation/Thesis / M.A. Curriculum and Instruction 2011

A pesquisa analisou o processo de avaliação pelos pares nas revistas brasileiras de Ciência da Informação como uma prática social na ciência. Além disso, verificou a estrutura editorial das revistas e a filiação institucional dos editores, membros das comissões editoriais e avaliadores. Para a coleta de dados, utilizou questionários distintos para cada sujeito e analisou partes textuais das seis revistas classificadas com conceito A (nacional) pelo Qualis/CAPES, a saber: Ciência da Informação, DataGramaZero, Encontros Bibli, Informação & Sociedade, Perspectivas em Ciência da Informação e Transinformação. Trata-se de um estudo descritivo que identificou como sujeitos os editores, membros das comissões editoriais, avaliadores e autores que contribuíram com as revistas em 2006. Os resultados apontaram que a estrutura editorial mais comum entre as revistas constitui-se de editor, comissão editorial, conselho consultivo e auxiliares. A maioria dos editores, membros das comissões editoriais e avaliadores são vinculados a instituições de ensino superior brasileiras ou estrangeiras. Sobre os procedimentos de avaliação, os resultados mostraram que o número de avaliadores por trabalho é no mínimo dois ou três. As revistas empregam critérios de avaliação que tratam dos aspectos formais e de conteúdo dos originais. A maioria dos membros das comissões editoriais e dos avaliadores considerou os procedimentos e critérios de avaliação satisfatórios. Entre os autores, a maior parte apontou que os procedimentos e critérios foram expressos com clareza pelas revistas. Os conflitos de interesse ocorreram com a minoria dos respondentes. A falta de respostas sobre alguns procedimentos adotados por uma revista dificultou a análise dos dados. Constata-se que as revistas, em sua maioria, seguem procedimentos de avaliação similares e de acordo com os padrões científicos. As diferenças principais estão relacionadas ao tipo de recompensa, ao formato do parecer dos avaliadores e à decisão final sobre a publicação dos artigos. / The study analyzed the peer review process in Brazilian journals of Information Science as a social practice in science. Moreover, it verified the editorial structure of scientific journals and the institutional affiliation of editors, members of editorial committees and reviewers. For the data gathering process, it utilized distinct questionnaires for each person and analyzed textual parts of six scientific journals graded A (national), according to Qualis/CAPES, namely: Ciência da Informação, DataGramaZero, Encontros Bibli, Informação & Sociedade, Perspectivas em Ciência da Informação e Transinformação. Subjects of this descriptive study are editors, members of editorial committees, reviewers and authors who have contributed to such journals in 2006. The results pointed that the most common editorial structure among the scientific journals is composed by editor, editorial committee, editorial board and assessors. Most of the editors, members of editorial committees and reviewers are affiliated to Brazilian or foreign institutions of higher education. Concerning the review procedures, the results revealed that the number of referees by articles is two or three. The scientific journals employ review criteria which deal with formal and content aspects of manuscripts. The majority of members of editorial committees and reviewers considered the procedures and review criteria satisfactory. The most part of the authors indicated that the procedures and review criteria were expressed clearly by scientific journals. Conflicts of interest occurred with the minority of respondents. The lack of answers about some procedures adopted by a scientific journal made the data analysis more difficult. Conclusions indicate that the scientific journals, in their majority, following similar peer review procedures and in accordance with scientific standards. The main differences are related to the type of recompense, the reviews format and the final decision about the publication of the articles.

A pesquisa analisou o processo de avaliação pelos pares nas revistas brasileiras de Ciência da Informação como uma prática social na ciência. Além disso, verificou a estrutura editorial das revistas e a filiação institucional dos editores, membros das comissões editoriais e avaliadores. Para a coleta de dados, utilizou questionários distintos para cada sujeito e analisou partes textuais das seis revistas classificadas com conceito A (nacional) pelo Qualis/CAPES, a saber: Ciência da Informação, DataGramaZero, Encontros Bibli, Informação & Sociedade, Perspectivas em Ciência da Informação e Transinformação. Trata-se de um estudo descritivo que identificou como sujeitos os editores, membros das comissões editoriais, avaliadores e autores que contribuíram com as revistas em 2006. Os resultados apontaram que a estrutura editorial mais comum entre as revistas constitui-se de editor, comissão editorial, conselho consultivo e auxiliares. A maioria dos editores, membros das comissões editoriais e avaliadores são vinculados a instituições de ensino superior brasileiras ou estrangeiras. Sobre os procedimentos de avaliação, os resultados mostraram que o número de avaliadores por trabalho é no mínimo dois ou três. As revistas empregam critérios de avaliação que tratam dos aspectos formais e de conteúdo dos originais. A maioria dos membros das comissões editoriais e dos avaliadores considerou os procedimentos e critérios de avaliação satisfatórios. Entre os autores, a maior parte apontou que os procedimentos e critérios foram expressos com clareza pelas revistas. Os conflitos de interesse ocorreram com a minoria dos respondentes. A falta de respostas sobre alguns procedimentos adotados por uma revista dificultou a análise dos dados. Constata-se que as revistas, em sua maioria, seguem procedimentos de avaliação similares e de acordo com os padrões científicos. As diferenças principais estão relacionadas ao tipo de recompensa, ao formato do parecer dos avaliadores e à decisão final sobre a publicação dos artigos. / The study analyzed the peer review process in Brazilian journals of Information Science as a social practice in science. Moreover, it verified the editorial structure of scientific journals and the institutional affiliation of editors, members of editorial committees and reviewers. For the data gathering process, it utilized distinct questionnaires for each person and analyzed textual parts of six scientific journals graded A (national), according to Qualis/CAPES, namely: Ciência da Informação, DataGramaZero, Encontros Bibli, Informação & Sociedade, Perspectivas em Ciência da Informação e Transinformação. Subjects of this descriptive study are editors, members of editorial committees, reviewers and authors who have contributed to such journals in 2006. The results pointed that the most common editorial structure among the scientific journals is composed by editor, editorial committee, editorial board and assessors. Most of the editors, members of editorial committees and reviewers are affiliated to Brazilian or foreign institutions of higher education. Concerning the review procedures, the results revealed that the number of referees by articles is two or three. The scientific journals employ review criteria which deal with formal and content aspects of manuscripts. The majority of members of editorial committees and reviewers considered the procedures and review criteria satisfactory. The most part of the authors indicated that the procedures and review criteria were expressed clearly by scientific journals. Conflicts of interest occurred with the minority of respondents. The lack of answers about some procedures adopted by a scientific journal made the data analysis more difficult. Conclusions indicate that the scientific journals, in their majority, following similar peer review procedures and in accordance with scientific standards. The main differences are related to the type of recompense, the reviews format and the final decision about the publication of the articles.

This study examines if and how the use of writing process and peer review can be beneficial to the text quality when writing a short essay in a foreign language. The study focuses on a group of Swedish high school students, 17 and 18 years of age, studying their second foreign language, German, with no prior experience of working with peer review in any subject. To investigate the efficiency of the use of writing process and peer review, four research questions were formulated:   1   To what extent does peer review lead to an improvement of the text quality?      a)  What comments to the texts do the students give during the group discussion?      b)  What do the students change in their own text after the group discussion?      c)  What are the students’ attitudes toward the work with peer review?   In order to understand how the students worked with the comments and how it affected the text quality, the conversations were compared with the actual changes made between the two text versions. The comments were mostly very polite. Even when the students criticized, they tried to give feedback very gently. All texts were improved after the peer review, although most of the errors from the first draft were still present in the second version. After the writing of the second draft, the students took a survey, where they were able to express their views on various aspects of the project. The students were mostly positive to this way of working with texts, although some of them found that they did not know enough German yet. Nevertheless, most of them wanted to try it again, to see their own progress.

A pesquisa analisou o processo de avaliação pelos pares nas revistas brasileiras de Ciência da Informação como uma prática social na ciência. Além disso, verificou a estrutura editorial das revistas e a filiação institucional dos editores, membros das comissões editoriais e avaliadores. Para a coleta de dados, utilizou questionários distintos para cada sujeito e analisou partes textuais das seis revistas classificadas com conceito A (nacional) pelo Qualis/CAPES, a saber: Ciência da Informação, DataGramaZero, Encontros Bibli, Informação & Sociedade, Perspectivas em Ciência da Informação e Transinformação. Trata-se de um estudo descritivo que identificou como sujeitos os editores, membros das comissões editoriais, avaliadores e autores que contribuíram com as revistas em 2006. Os resultados apontaram que a estrutura editorial mais comum entre as revistas constitui-se de editor, comissão editorial, conselho consultivo e auxiliares. A maioria dos editores, membros das comissões editoriais e avaliadores são vinculados a instituições de ensino superior brasileiras ou estrangeiras. Sobre os procedimentos de avaliação, os resultados mostraram que o número de avaliadores por trabalho é no mínimo dois ou três. As revistas empregam critérios de avaliação que tratam dos aspectos formais e de conteúdo dos originais. A maioria dos membros das comissões editoriais e dos avaliadores considerou os procedimentos e critérios de avaliação satisfatórios. Entre os autores, a maior parte apontou que os procedimentos e critérios foram expressos com clareza pelas revistas. Os conflitos de interesse ocorreram com a minoria dos respondentes. A falta de respostas sobre alguns procedimentos adotados por uma revista dificultou a análise dos dados. Constata-se que as revistas, em sua maioria, seguem procedimentos de avaliação similares e de acordo com os padrões científicos. As diferenças principais estão relacionadas ao tipo de recompensa, ao formato do parecer dos avaliadores e à decisão final sobre a publicação dos artigos. / The study analyzed the peer review process in Brazilian journals of Information Science as a social practice in science. Moreover, it verified the editorial structure of scientific journals and the institutional affiliation of editors, members of editorial committees and reviewers. For the data gathering process, it utilized distinct questionnaires for each person and analyzed textual parts of six scientific journals graded A (national), according to Qualis/CAPES, namely: Ciência da Informação, DataGramaZero, Encontros Bibli, Informação & Sociedade, Perspectivas em Ciência da Informação e Transinformação. Subjects of this descriptive study are editors, members of editorial committees, reviewers and authors who have contributed to such journals in 2006. The results pointed that the most common editorial structure among the scientific journals is composed by editor, editorial committee, editorial board and assessors. Most of the editors, members of editorial committees and reviewers are affiliated to Brazilian or foreign institutions of higher education. Concerning the review procedures, the results revealed that the number of referees by articles is two or three. The scientific journals employ review criteria which deal with formal and content aspects of manuscripts. The majority of members of editorial committees and reviewers considered the procedures and review criteria satisfactory. The most part of the authors indicated that the procedures and review criteria were expressed clearly by scientific journals. Conflicts of interest occurred with the minority of respondents. The lack of answers about some procedures adopted by a scientific journal made the data analysis more difficult. Conclusions indicate that the scientific journals, in their majority, following similar peer review procedures and in accordance with scientific standards. The main differences are related to the type of recompense, the reviews format and the final decision about the publication of the articles.