Quick Guide Incorporating Peer Review Feedback

Examples of Common Feedback

To help you prepare for what to expect, we’ve outlined some of the most common types of feedback by type of book.

Originally Written Works

References/Citations

  • The book can use more citations.
  • The book can cite more timely material or the information cited is obsolete or incorrect now.
  • There are other sources that provide relevant, alternative perspectives that should be cited and are not currently cited.

Sensitive Language

  • The way information is presented/the language being used is not academically neutral.
  • Terminology used is outdated or no longer considered appropriate.

Pedagogical Elements

  • The book needs more figures/imagery or more relevant figures/imagery.
  • The book would benefit from some exercises or interactive learning activities.
  • Objectives/outcomes, key terms, and/or discussion questions should be added.

Organization and Topics

  • The book is too long or there is too much material to cover in one semester.
  • There is too much theory. There needs to be more practical examples or exercises.
  • The order of topics does not align with the reviewer’s own course.
  • A topic area that should be standard for the discipline needs to be added.

Anthologies of Previously Published Third-Party Content

  • “I like the content, but would have personally organized it like this…”
  • Some units/chapters have several readings while others have only one or two readings.
  • The content is too advanced or not appropriate for the intended audience.
  • There are alternative readings that would be more effective.
  • The unit/chapter/reading introductions are too brief and need elaboration to more adequately provide context.
  • The unit/chapter/reading introductions are too long/detailed and detract from student focus on reading the material and interpreting it for themselves.
  • The pre/post-reading questions are too easy or do not inspire reflection/discussion/critical thinking.
  • The pre/post-reading questions are too difficult for the intended audience or they do not connect to the readings in any way.
  • The readings do not reflect diversity in authorship or sources.

Contributed Volumes

  • There are inconsistencies in voice between units/chapters.
  • Some units/chapters are much longer or shorter than others.
  • Some units/chapters are suitable for the intended audience while one or the others are not.
  • Pedagogical elements (i.e., key terms, objectives, questions) are not consistent between units/chapters.