Peer Review: April 11th, 2017
When there is a fresh pair of eyes looking at your work, there is a new perspective added to the mix. Participating in peer review with my group members allowed me to visualize the weaknesses in my writing that I would have not picked up on during my own individual revisions. Before turning in my Editor’s Introduction for peer review, I had gone over it so many times that I missed major areas of improvement. For example, I made sure to order my sub-sections in a way that was logical based on the research I had done. This was something that my peer review partners complemented me on, but they pointed out that I missed something important within the same domain. I did not add proper transitional sentences between all of my sub-sections. In my mind, since I was the one that conducted the research, the order made sense and transitioned well in my head. Therefore, during the writing process I mistakenly excluded this aspect from the writing, assuming the reader would understand the order. After reading my peer review comments and re-reading my Editor’s Introduction, I immediately saw places where the connections were desperately needed.