Presentation last January 12, 2018

1. Division Seminar-Writeshop on Writing Journal Article
for Approved Action and Applied Research
Reggie O. Cruz, Ed.D.
School Research Coordinator
Angeles City Senior High School
January 12, 2018 @ DEPED Angeles City Library Hub
QUALITIES OF A WELL-WRITTEN
PEER REVIEW REPORT

2. Objectives of the Session
• Define the role of the peer reviewer in the process of systematic
contribution of knowledge in the specific discipline
• Comprehend the importance of peer review in the professional
development
• Enumerate the qualities of a well-written peer review report
• Synthesize the qualities of a well-written peer review report using
intertextual approach
• Encourage the developmental approach for preventing peer review
misconduct

3. FLOW CHART OF TOPICS
Definition of Peer
Review
Importance of
Peer Review
Qualities of a
Well-Written
Peer Review
Report
Developmental
Approach for
Peer Review
Misconduct

4. Peer Review
Is a process by which experts in some discipline
comment on the quality of the works of others in
that discipline. It is a quality control mechanism
for conferences, journals and funding across
disciplines. (Price & Flach, 2017).

5. Peer Review
It is an integral part of science. Devised to ensure
and enhance the quality of scientific work. It is a
crucial step that influences the publication of
papers etc. (Jirschitzka et. al, 2017).

6. Why Review?
(Bagchi et. al, 2017)
•Reviewing papers gives an early access to still-
developing theories and methods within the
field
•Reviewing is a good opportunity to build
mentoring skills.
•Gives chance to build the reviewers network.

7. INVOLVES IN THE REVIEW OF ACADEMIC JOURNAL
(Academy of Management Review, 2017)
Author • Origin
Peer
Reviewer
• Comments
Editor • Finalization

8. Qualities of a well-written Peer Review Report
(Japos, 2017)
Using standards:
A review instruments
Show Perspicacity or the
keenness of understanding of
lapses seen in the paper
Be positive,
motivating and
charming
Use only
substantive issues
Decide if accepted without or with
revisions or rejected bound with
objective reasons
Check the
following:
Grammar,
Plagiarism and
readability
Be gracious
and ethical
Go beyond
the
standards
Show evidences
that the
reviewer is more
knowledgeable
Use
recommendatory
tone

9. Qualities of a well written peer review report
Qualities of a
well written peer
review report
(Japos, 2017)
Peer review as a
science: following a
certain standards
(Jirschintza, 2017)
Ethical sound:
respecting the author’s
work
(Varki, 2017)
Going Beyond the
standards: raising the
bar for developmental
approach
(Academy of
Management Review,
2017)
Positive, motivating
and more
knowledgeable
(Shideler & Araujo,
2017)

10. Developmental Approach for
Preventing Peer Review Misconduct
(Academy of Management Review,2017; Varki, 2017)
• It is a developmental culture that optimized the
author-reviewer relationship.
• Identifying not only that shortcomings but helping the
authors to move forward with their work.

11. • Avoiding the confrontational and combative process
•Open dialogue between the author and the peer
reviewer
Developmental Approach for
Preventing Peer Review Misconduct
(Academy of Management Review,2017; Varki, 2017)

12. List of References
Academy of Management Review (2017) Editor’s Comments: Raising the Bar for
Developmental Reviewing, Vol. 42 No. 4. pp 573-576
Bagchi, R. et.al (2017) A Field Guide for the Review Process: Writing and
Responding to Peer Reviews, Journal of Consumer Research.
Vol 23 pp 860 -872.
Japos, G. (2017) Qualities of a Well-Written Peer Review Report. Philippine
Association of Institutions of Research Incorporated,
Northwestern University
Jirschitzka, J. (2017) Inter-rater Reliability and Validity of Peer Reviews in an
Interdisciplinary field, Scientomentrics, Vo. 113 Issue 2 pp. 1059- 1092.

13. List of References
Price S. and Flach, P. (2017) Computational Support for Academic Peer
Review: A Perspective from Artificial Intelligence, Communication
of the ACM, Vol 60 No. 3, pp 27-30
Shideler, G. and Araujo, R. (2017) Reviewer Interest in a Manuscript
may Predict its Future Citation Potential, Scientometrics,
Vol 113 Issue 2, pp. 1171-1176.
Varki, E. (2017) Computing Ethics: where Review Goes Wrong,
Communications of the ACM, Vol 60 no. 30 pp 28-30

14. Background
Dr. Reggie O. Cruz is a graduate of Doctor of Education Major in Educational
Management (2016) at Tarlac State University, Master of Arts in Education Major in
Filipino (2013) at Angeles University Foundation and a Bachelor of Secondary Education
Major in Filipino at Holy Angel University (2006). He is currently taking his Doctor of
Philosophy in Curriculum and Instruction with specialization in Filipino Language
Teaching at Angeles University Foundation (2017 to present).
He is a full time Senior High School Teacher at Angeles City Senior High School teaching
Research and a Part-Time Graduate School Professor teaching subjects for Master of Arts
in Education Major in Educational Administration and Supervision at OSIAS Colleges
Incorporated, Tarlac City.
He conducted classroom based action research, institutional research and self-initiated
research in Filipino, Educational Management and Educational Assessments. He already
published literary works and invited resource speaker on Campus Journalism, Filipino
Language Teaching, Professional Development and Action Research Making. He
presented research papers for International and National Conferences in Reading,
Kapampangan Literature and Educational Leadership and Management.