Utilising peer review and self-assessment as a tool for researching helps to “identify flaws in design and analysis or interpretation, to suggest improvements, to direct manuscripts to the most appropriate outlets [resources], and to discourage repetition in publishing”(Dancik, 2010), as well as weed out information that can sometimes be disguised by an individual’s predisposition or tunnel vision. Although peer review is not without flaws, referee-suggested modifications typically enhance the quality of published research. 

A good peer review should include suggestions or constructive criticisms aimed at helping the authors strengthen their work rather than transforming it into something different. Reasonable evaluations simply make reasonable requests of the authors concerning the work and its stated goals. They do not request tangential additions or ‘nice-to-have modifications. Peer commentary should always be polite and professional to express your views as fairly and considerately as possible. 

PEER COMMENTARY

Katrina’s pitch was about her ethnographic research into Goodreads – a large database of books – and her explanation into leaving reviews/reactions/ratings on specific books to further understand the representation of her specific niche within modern culture. Analysing her blog and pitch has shown me that I could explain my autoethnographic approach better in terms of how I’m going to apply this within my DA. When writing her feedback I should have included useful sources on how to effectively compare reviews as this would have complimented and created leverage to my suggestion. 

Oreyms pitch discussed his approach to his DA of UX designing for the Sims 4 simulation. His intention for his Da is to create a design portfolio to demonstrate his understanding of Game design as well as design research practice. Oreym Highlighted his specific analytical framework and the communities he will be engaging in well. I provided a resource about autoethnography as he didn’t mention this within his blog or pitch – which can help him communicate how he’s going to be using this method throughout his DA. Through examining his pitch, I can understand the aspects of creating an online portfolio niche and the technical side of this. 

Lastly, Camellia’s pitch addressed her niche of wellness culture. Focusing on her journey when it comes to developing her DA, through gathering data by the means of participant observation and how influencers/businesses organise their personas within their platform. Camellia’s pitch was very engaging, straight to the point and concentrated on her concept effectively. My feedback comment wasn’t very strong in terms of constructiveness, I should have included a request that would help her strengthen her overall pitch such as suggesting to compare her approach to wellness culture in contrast to influencers and businesses with a large following, coupled with useful links on how to compare and write without bias. 

References:

1. Dancik, B., 2010. Importance of Peer Review. [online] Tandfonline.com. Available at: <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1300/J123v19n03_11&gt; [Accessed 26 August 2021].