Peer Review: A Tool to Enhance the Quality of Academic Written Productions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Higher education focuses on promoting the training of autonomous, critical professionals who adapt to the ever-more demanding labor market. To achieve these objectives, it is necessary to rethink teaching practices in order to allow the student to be the main actor and modeler for their learning process. Previous studies based on Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory have shown that learning should be treated as a socio-cultural activity. Indeed, according to this approach, individual knowledge is firstly constructed at a social level. Peer review, for its part, is a learning tool based on the sociocultural approach. It allows students to achieve higher levels of autonomy and critical thinking. This research’s aim is, on the one hand, to analyze the effect of peer review on the quality of academic essays and, on the other, to examine the way in which linguistic and communicative competence in academic writing are affected. This experimental study was carried out with 68 level B1 + students (32 men and 36 women) in a private university in Ecuador during one academic year. After the statistical analysis, it is concluded that peer review has a positive impact on academic writing. However, the impact is higher in the communicative competence than in the linguistic competence. This result is aligned with previous research, which shows that students tend to prioritize message over form. Future research should investigate peer review’s long-term impact upon students and their ability to transfer skills acquired in English class to other subjects, or even to professional contexts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".