So far I've been lucky and I've been reviewing some really interesting projects and I'm so happy! I just completed a review of Hannah Gardener's "The Inseparability of Nature and Nurture" and left primarily some language usage suggestions, placing my peer review in the category of local revision.
I think my comments could really help Hannah in that precision of language is SO crucial when it comes to topics in science. If the audience does not have a strong background in science, you could lose or confuse them so easily by being wordy or imprecise. It also strengthens an argument to speak clearly and say exactly what you mean, so I think suggesting improvements in word choice really can make a difference.
I tried to incorporate local revision concepts from Student's Guide but I knew what I wanted to suggest and it wasn't on the list. Maybe I was more nit-picky and pointed out little things, but I think what I did was helpful even though it didn't fall into a category like tense usage, wordiness (well one suggestion did) etc.
I really liked the way she constructed her entire argument as essentially a fight against the counterargument. It flows really naturally to see "someone thinks this but this isn't the case, someone else thinks this but here's the truth". Especially with an argument like I think it was a really natural and smart move, and I wonder if there's any way I could keep this in mind andapply it at least somewhere in my own draft.
No comments:
Post a Comment