Heather – Heather’s paper was about orgasm and partner satisfaction. She had an excellent, well-researched methodology and showed a great passion in her work. There were very few problems with content and I mostly corrected for small grammatical issues.
Sarah – Sarah wrote a paper on the ability of resident assistants to assist sexual minority students. The paper also had very few problems with content. The methodology was especially strong, protecting the identity of the researcher at all times. I learned some very interesting things from this paper, as well. Most of the corrections I made were small, and usually related to grammatical issues.
John – John wrote a paper on attitudes towards women’s rights with an international perspective. Some of the order needed to be revised, such as stating the complete hypothesis earlier in the paper. There were a lot of grammatical / structural issues, but those are understandable for an international student. I tried to help him understand the reasoning behind the grammar. I liked how John used passionate arguments in his paper. It used quite a bit of allegory and poetic speech, which made the arguments very strong.
Unknown – The blind peer review was concerning a multimedia project, so this was a new perspective for me because the previous articles were all meant to be journal articles. The research was about friendship’s effects on musical collaboration. This paper had the opposite problem of the earlier ones. Its grammar and style were excellent, but its methodology was not very appropriate. There seemed to be design flaws at many of the stages and I couldn’t suggest correcting them since the project was already complete. I suggested expanding the literature review to compensate.
