Soldiering. And Peer Review. How Do You Write for the Profession?

What Constitutes a Good Peer Review?

[Today’s music? Some Blues Traveller, because rock harmonica is always in style! Hook]

I like to say that everything I needed to know in life, I learned in the army. The subject of today’s blog is no different, and I learned about peer review while training infantry recruits. My last posting was to the Battle School of the Royal Canadian Regiment, RCR. The RCR is Canada’s oldest English infantry regiment, and the Battle School is where recruits go to learn the serious business of engaging with, and killing, enemy forces. Every morning, recruits marched into the instruction hall, and written above the door was the school’s motto: “Never pass a fault”. The recruits were challenged many times during training, and later in their careers, with understanding and explaining what that meant. They all came to understand that they must not only self-reflect to ensure that their actions were correct, but in the dangerous profession of arms, they must never allow their fellow soldiers to commit faulty actions. Faults are dangerous. For soldiers, faults get people killed. (General Vance used this motto as the core of a speech given to graduates of the Royal Military College; it’s worth a read if you want to understand soldiers a bit better).

The Battle School of the RCR had a core principle, and commitment, for soldiers to continually assess their leaders, themselves, and their peers to ensure that they properly followed the requirements of their profession – a practice of constant peer reviews.

My first understanding, then, of a good peer review is that although it is traditionally a practice in writing, it can (and is) employed as practice for life. Some organizations, such as the military, use constant peer reviews as a way to maximize safety and build cohesion. Other organizations consider peer reviews for more constrained purposes, such as a way to write an effective journal paper; in this case, peer reviews are both effective in supporting the profession, and in delivering an effective style of writing.

So, let’s focus on peer reviews as an aspect of the writing process.

Before considering what constitutes a good peer review, I have to start right at the beginning. What exactly is a peer review, or peer edit? Is it different from a regular review or an edit? After all, the process of editing is well understood; but does the process change if you precede the “review” with the word “peer”?

I believe that the word “peer” adds a new dimension of responsibility to the editing process. The reviewer is a peer of the author, a member of the same profession, the same organizations, and follows the formal and informal rules and responsibilities that are followed by the author, and by fellow professionals. As the peer reviewer, your job is to ensure that the writer at least meets the minimum expected standards for the profession; thus, the starting point for a good peer review is an acknowledgement of self-regulation: together, the author/editor team is both creating and supporting the discipline.

Just editing a document entangles the expectations of the author, editor, and reader; a peer review adds new complexities. The peer reviewer must have an understanding of the discipline, an understanding of the journal (or whatever the medium of expression is), an understanding of the subject matter, and an understanding of the author’s perspective. Does the written product meet the standards expected of someone in the same profession of the author, and the editor? If the editor feels that the author is not meeting a formal or an informal “expected” standard, does the editor have the mandate and the skills to elevate the written work to where it should be? How much should the editor be teaching the author about where their place in the profession is, and how the author needs to get there?

Once the peer reviewer has accepted the perspective that they represent the interests of the profession as much as the interests of the author, then the editing process begins. In one sense, editing is conducted “as per normal” (I’m not going to dwell on the editing process; for me, “editing is editing, and multiple processes for the technical aspects of editing and peer review exist; however, these are usually similar, and as long as you follow a consistent editing process, the important elements of editing will be completed); however, there is the acknowledgement that there is something more to consider. Imagine if you were editing a paper in a completely different field; for example, maybe astronomy. I could edit that paper to ensure that correct punctuation was present, or that spelling was correct and consistent, but my lack of knowledge would prevent me from using the correct terms and expressions, or ensuring that the rigour needed to prove conclusive statements was present or correct. I would definitely lack the knowledge of the existing scholarship, and not know if the paper was relevant to the field, if it was redundant, or if the the paper was revolutionary. The lack of context that a peer brings to the editing process is critical for success of the paper, and in supporting the field.

Finally, after the editing process is complete, the peer review differs from how editing processes in how the edited paper is presented back to the author. In non-peer editing, the focus is on the edits, and understanding and resolving what is on the paper (or screen). In a good peer-review, the reviewer is focused on improving the author and aligning them with professional expectations as much as improving the text. Although the reviewer’s approach will depend on their relationship with the author, the essence of a good peer review will remain to “never pass a fault”.