Is Peer Review Overrated
Many think that peer-reviewing literature is overrated because it’s time-consuming. In fact, those who don’t approve of peer pressure are usually the ones who don’t take criticism well. Editors such as Ken Kurson urge students and writers to peer edit their work. Gaining insights from other points of view can be very beneficial to someone’s work.
Some ways to gain momentum on peer review is by doing writing in parts. When doing so, it allows those editing enough time to look over the work and comment on it. No peer reviewer should never directly make edits without permission. This can be very disruptive to the flow of writing. In major journalism companies and news outlets, peer revision is a necessary step in order to be published. Peer reviewing will never be overrated or unneeded. It’s extremely beneficial to both parties involved. Learning how to edit a paper will only enhance abilities to catch personal mistakes down the road. It’s also a great way to collaborate on ideas that can push both writers to be better and more significant. Ken Kurson says it takes time to develop a peer revision routine, but in the end, it’s all worth it.