peer review of a presentation

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections

How to Write a Peer Review

When you write a peer review for a manuscript, what should you include in your comments? What should you leave out? And how should the review be formatted?

This guide provides quick tips for writing and organizing your reviewer report.

Review Outline

Use an outline for your reviewer report so it’s easy for the editors and author to follow. This will also help you keep your comments organized.

Think about structuring your review like an inverted pyramid. Put the most important information at the top, followed by details and examples in the center, and any additional points at the very bottom.

Here’s how your outline might look:

1. Summary of the research and your overall impression

In your own words, summarize what the manuscript claims to report. This shows the editor how you interpreted the manuscript and will highlight any major differences in perspective between you and the other reviewers. Give an overview of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses. Think about this as your “take-home” message for the editors. End this section with your recommended course of action.

2. Discussion of specific areas for improvement

It’s helpful to divide this section into two parts: one for major issues and one for minor issues. Within each section, you can talk about the biggest issues first or go systematically figure-by-figure or claim-by-claim. Number each item so that your points are easy to follow (this will also make it easier for the authors to respond to each point). Refer to specific lines, pages, sections, or figure and table numbers so the authors (and editors) know exactly what you’re talking about.

Major vs. minor issues

What’s the difference between a major and minor issue? Major issues should consist of the essential points the authors need to address before the manuscript can proceed. Make sure you focus on what is  fundamental for the current study . In other words, it’s not helpful to recommend additional work that would be considered the “next step” in the study. Minor issues are still important but typically will not affect the overall conclusions of the manuscript. Here are some examples of what would might go in the “minor” category:

• Missing references (but depending on what is missing, this could also be a major issue)
• Technical clarifications (e.g., the authors should clarify how a reagent works)
• Data presentation (e.g., the authors should present p-values differently)
• Typos, spelling, grammar, and phrasing issues

3. Any other points

Confidential comments for the editors.

Some journals have a space for reviewers to enter confidential comments about the manuscript. Use this space to mention concerns about the submission that you’d want the editors to consider before sharing your feedback with the authors, such as concerns about ethical guidelines or language quality. Any serious issues should be raised directly and immediately with the journal as well.

This section is also where you will disclose any potentially competing interests, and mention whether you’re willing to look at a revised version of the manuscript.

Do not use this space to critique the manuscript, since comments entered here will not be passed along to the authors.  If you’re not sure what should go in the confidential comments, read the reviewer instructions or check with the journal first before submitting your review. If you are reviewing for a journal that does not offer a space for confidential comments, consider writing to the editorial office directly with your concerns.

Get this outline in a template

Giving Feedback

Giving feedback is hard. Giving effective feedback can be even more challenging. Remember that your ultimate goal is to discuss what the authors would need to do in order to qualify for publication. The point is not to nitpick every piece of the manuscript. Your focus should be on providing constructive and critical feedback that the authors can use to improve their study.

If you’ve ever had your own work reviewed, you already know that it’s not always easy to receive feedback. Follow the golden rule: Write the type of review you’d want to receive if you were the author. Even if you decide not to identify yourself in the review, you should write comments that you would be comfortable signing your name to.

In your comments, use phrases like “ the authors’ discussion of X” instead of “ your discussion of X .” This will depersonalize the feedback and keep the focus on the manuscript instead of the authors.

General guidelines for effective feedback

• Justify your recommendation with concrete evidence and specific examples.
• Be specific so the authors know what they need to do to improve.
• Be thorough. This might be the only time you read the manuscript.
• Be professional and respectful. The authors will be reading these comments too.
• Remember to say what you liked about the manuscript!

Don’t

• Recommend additional experiments or  unnecessary elements that are out of scope for the study or for the journal criteria.
• Tell the authors exactly how to revise their manuscript—you don’t need to do their work for them.
• Use the review to promote your own research or hypotheses.
• Focus on typos and grammar. If the manuscript needs significant editing for language and writing quality, just mention this in your comments.
• Submit your review without proofreading it and checking everything one more time.

Before and After: Sample Reviewer Comments

Keeping in mind the guidelines above, how do you put your thoughts into words? Here are some sample “before” and “after” reviewer comments

✗ Before

“The authors appear to have no idea what they are talking about. I don’t think they have read any of the literature on this topic.”

✓ After

“The study fails to address how the findings relate to previous research in this area. The authors should rewrite their Introduction and Discussion to reference the related literature, especially recently published work such as Darwin et al.”

“The writing is so bad, it is practically unreadable. I could barely bring myself to finish it.”

“While the study appears to be sound, the language is unclear, making it difficult to follow. I advise the authors work with a writing coach or copyeditor to improve the flow and readability of the text.”

“It’s obvious that this type of experiment should have been included. I have no idea why the authors didn’t use it. This is a big mistake.”

“The authors are off to a good start, however, this study requires additional experiments, particularly [type of experiment]. Alternatively, the authors should include more information that clarifies and justifies their choice of methods.”

Suggested Language for Tricky Situations

You might find yourself in a situation where you’re not sure how to explain the problem or provide feedback in a constructive and respectful way. Here is some suggested language for common issues you might experience.

What you think : The manuscript is fatally flawed. What you could say: “The study does not appear to be sound” or “the authors have missed something crucial”.

What you think : You don’t completely understand the manuscript. What you could say : “The authors should clarify the following sections to avoid confusion…”

What you think : The technical details don’t make sense. What you could say : “The technical details should be expanded and clarified to ensure that readers understand exactly what the researchers studied.”

What you think: The writing is terrible. What you could say : “The authors should revise the language to improve readability.”

What you think : The authors have over-interpreted the findings. What you could say : “The authors aim to demonstrate [XYZ], however, the data does not fully support this conclusion. Specifically…”

What does a good review look like?

Check out the peer review examples at F1000 Research to see how other reviewers write up their reports and give constructive feedback to authors.

Time to Submit the Review!

Be sure you turn in your report on time. Need an extension? Tell the journal so that they know what to expect. If you need a lot of extra time, the journal might need to contact other reviewers or notify the author about the delay.

Tip: Building a relationship with an editor

You’ll be more likely to be asked to review again if you provide high-quality feedback and if you turn in the review on time. Especially if it’s your first review for a journal, it’s important to show that you are reliable. Prove yourself once and you’ll get asked to review again!

• Getting started as a reviewer
• Responding to an invitation
• Reading a manuscript
• Writing a peer review

The contents of the Peer Review Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

The contents of the Writing Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…

How to Give Effective Presentation Feedback

A conversation with sam j. lubner, md, facp.

Giving an effective scientific presentation, like all public speaking, is an acquired skill that takes practice to perfect. When delivered successfully, an oral presentation can be an invaluable opportunity to showcase your latest research results among your colleagues and peers. It can also promote attendee engagement and help audience members retain the information being presented, enhancing the educational benefit of your talk, according to Sam J. ­Lubner, MD, FACP , Associate Professor of Medicine and Program Director, Hematology-Oncology Fellowship, at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, and a member of ASCO’s Education Council.

Sam J. ­Lubner, MD, FACP

In 2019, the Education Council launched a pilot program to provide a group of selected speakers at the ASCO Annual Meeting with feedback on their presentations. Although some of the reviewers, which included members of the Education Council and Education Scholars Program, as well as ASCO’s program directors, conveyed information to the presenters that was goal-referenced, tangible, transparent, actionable, specific, and personalized—the hallmarks of effective feedback—others provided comments that were too vague to improve the speaker’s performance, said Dr. Lubner. For example, they offered comments such as “Great session” or “Your slides were too complicated,” without being specific about what made the session “great” or the slides “too complicated.”

“Giving a presentation at a scientific meeting is different from what we were trained to do. We’re trained to take care of patients, and while we do have some training in presentation, it usually centers around how to deliver clinical information,” said Dr. Lubner. “What we are trying to do with the Education Council’s presentation feedback project is to apply evidence-based methods for giving effective feedback to make presentations at ASCO’s Annual Meeting, international meetings, symposia, and conferences more clinically relevant and educationally beneficial.”

GUEST EDITOR

The ASCO Post talked with Dr. Lubner about how to give effective feedback and how to become a more effective presenter.

Defining Effective Feedback

Feedback is often confused with giving advice, praise, and evaluation, but none of these descriptions are exactly accurate. What constitutes effective feedback?

When I was looking over the literature on feedback to prepare myself on how to give effective feedback to the medical students and residents I oversee, I was amazed to find the information is largely outdated. For example, recommendations in the 1980s and 1990s called for employing the “sandwich” feedback method, which involves saying something positive, then saying what needs to be improved, and then making another positive remark. But that method is time-intensive, and it feels disingenuous to me.

What constitutes helpful feedback to me is information that is goal-referenced, actionable, specific, and has immediate impact. It should be constructive, descriptive, and nonjudgmental. After I give feedback to a student or resident, my next comments often start with a self-reflective question, “How did that go?” and that opens the door to further discussion. The mnemonic I use to provide better feedback and achieve learning goals is SMART: specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and timely, as described here:

• Specific: Avoid using ambiguous language, for example, “Your presentation was great.” Be specific about what made the presentation “great,” such as, “Starting your presentation off with a provocative question grabbed my attention.”
• Measurable: Suggest quantifiable objectives to meet so there is no uncertainty about what the goals are. For example, “Next time, try a summary slide with one or two take-home points for the audience.”
• Achievable: The goal of the presentation should be attainable. For example, “Trim your slides to no more than six lines per slide and no more than six words per line; otherwise, you are just reading your slides.”
• Realistic: The feedback you give should relate to the goal the presenter is trying to achieve. For example, “Relating the research results back to an initial case presentation will solidify the take-home point that for cancer x, treatment y is the best choice.”
• Timely: Feedback given directly after completion of the presentation is more effective than feedback provided at a later date.

The ultimate goal of effective feedback is to help the presenter become more adept at relaying his or her research in an engaging and concise way, to maintain the audience’s attention and ensure that they retain the information presented.

“Giving a presentation at a scientific meeting is different from what we were trained to do.” — Sam J. Lubner, MD, FACP Tweet this quote

Honing Your Communication Skills

What are some specific tips on how to give effective feedback?

There are five tips that immediately come to mind: (1) focus on description rather than judgment; (2) focus on observation rather than inference; (3) focus on observable behaviors; (4) share both positive and constructive specific points of feedback with the presenter; and (5) focus on the most important points to improve future ­presentations.

Becoming a Proficient Presenter

How can ASCO faculty become more proficient at delivering their research at the Annual Meeting and at ASCO’s thematic meetings?

ASCO has published faculty guidelines and best practices to help speakers immediately involve an audience in their presentation and hold their attention throughout the talk. They include the following recommendations:

• Be engaging. Include content that will grab the audience’s attention early. For example, interesting facts, images, or a short video to hold the audience’s focus.
• Be cohesive and concise. When preparing slides, make sure the presentation has a clear and logical flow to it, from the introduction to its conclusion. Establish key points and clearly define their importance and impact in a concise, digestible manner.
• Include take-home points. Speakers should briefly summarize key findings from their research and ensure that their conclusion is fully supported by the data in their presentation. If possible, they should provide recommendations or actions to help solidify their message. Thinking about and answering this question—if the audience remembers one thing from my presentation, what do I want it to be?—will help speakers focus their presentation.
• When it comes to slide design, remember, less is more. It’s imperative to keep slides simple to make an impact on the audience.

Another method to keep the audience engaged and enhance the educational benefit of the talk is to use the Think-Pair ( ± Share) strategy, by which the speaker asks attendees to think through questions using two to three steps. They include:

• Think independently about the question that has been posed, forming ideas.
• Pair to discuss thoughts, allowing learners to articulate their ideas and to consider those of others.
• Share (as a pair) the ideas with the larger group.

The value of this exercise is that it helps participants retain the information presented, encourages individual participation, and refines ideas and knowledge through collaboration.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SLIDE DESIGN

• Have a single point per line.
• Use < 6 words per line.
• Use < 6 lines per slide.
• Use < 30 characters per slide.
• Use simple words.
• When using tables, maintain a maximum of 6 rows and 6 columns.
• Avoid busy graphics or tables. If you find yourself apologizing to the audience because your slide is too busy, it’s a bad slide and should not be included in the presentation.
• Use cues, not full thoughts, to make your point.
• Keep to one slide per minute as a guide to the length of the presentation.
• Include summary/take-home points per concept. We are all physicians who care about our patients and believe in adhering to good science. Highlight the information you want the audience to take away from your presentation and how that information applies to excellent patient care.

Speakers should also avoid using shorthand communication or dehumanizing language when describing research results. For example, do not refer to patients as a disease: “The study included 250 EGFR mutants.” Say instead, “The study included 250 patients with EGFR -mutant tumors.” And do not use language that appears to blame patients when their cancer progresses after treatment, such as, “Six patients failed to respond to [study drug].” Instead say, “Six patients had tumors that did not respond to [study drug].”

We all have respect for our patients, families, and colleagues, but sometimes our language doesn’t reflect that level of respect, and we need to be more careful and precise in the language we use when talking with our patients and our colleagues.

ASCO has developed a document titled “The Language of Respect” to provide guidance on appropriate respectful language to use when talking with patients, family members, or other health-care providers and when giving presentations at the Annual Meeting and other ASCO symposia. Presenters should keep these critical points in mind and put them into practice when delivering research data at these meetings. ■

DISCLOSURE: Dr. Lubner has been employed by Farcast Biosciences and has held a leadership role at Farcast Biosciences.

Chemical Related Epigenetic Modifications May Increase Risk of Prostate Cancer Among Firefighters

Whole-pelvic radiation therapy for unfavorable-risk prostate cancer, head and neck cancer osteoradionecrosis of the jaw classification system, novel pet agent may accelerate imaging in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma, impact of age on outcomes in endometrial cancer.

• Editorial Board
• Advertising
• Disclosures
• Privacy Policy

Peer review templates, expert examples and free training courses

Joanna Wilkinson

Learning how to write a constructive peer review is an essential step in helping to safeguard the quality and integrity of published literature. Read on for resources that will get you on the right track, including peer review templates, example reports and the Web of Science™ Academy: our free, online course that teaches you the core competencies of peer review through practical experience ( try it today ).

How to write a peer review

Understanding the principles, forms and functions of peer review will enable you to write solid, actionable review reports. It will form the basis for a comprehensive and well-structured review, and help you comment on the quality, rigor and significance of the research paper. It will also help you identify potential breaches of normal ethical practice.

This may sound daunting but it doesn’t need to be. There are plenty of peer review templates, resources and experts out there to help you, including:

Peer review training courses and in-person workshops

• Peer review templates ( found in our Web of Science Academy )
• Expert examples of peer review reports
• Co-reviewing (sharing the task of peer reviewing with a senior researcher)

Other peer review resources, blogs, and guidelines

We’ll go through each one of these in turn below, but first: a quick word on why learning peer review is so important.

Why learn to peer review?

Peer reviewers and editors are gatekeepers of the research literature used to document and communicate human discovery. Reviewers, therefore, need a sound understanding of their role and obligations to ensure the integrity of this process. This also helps them maintain quality research, and to help protect the public from flawed and misleading research findings.

Learning to peer review is also an important step in improving your own professional development.

You’ll become a better writer and a more successful published author in learning to review. It gives you a critical vantage point and you’ll begin to understand what editors are looking for. It will also help you keep abreast of new research and best-practice methods in your field.

We strongly encourage you to learn the core concepts of peer review by joining a course or workshop. You can attend in-person workshops to learn from and network with experienced reviewers and editors. As an example, Sense about Science offers peer review workshops every year. To learn more about what might be in store at one of these, researcher Laura Chatland shares her experience at one of the workshops in London.

There are also plenty of free, online courses available, including courses in the Web of Science Academy such as ‘Reviewing in the Sciences’, ‘Reviewing in the Humanities’ and ‘An introduction to peer review’

The Web of Science Academy also supports co-reviewing with a mentor to teach peer review through practical experience. You learn by writing reviews of preprints, published papers, or even ‘real’ unpublished manuscripts with guidance from your mentor. You can work with one of our community mentors or your own PhD supervisor or postdoc advisor, or even a senior colleague in your department.

Go to the Web of Science Academy

Peer review templates

Peer review templates are helpful to use as you work your way through a manuscript. As part of our free Web of Science Academy courses, you’ll gain exclusive access to comprehensive guidelines and a peer review report. It offers points to consider for all aspects of the manuscript, including the abstract, methods and results sections. It also teaches you how to structure your review and will get you thinking about the overall strengths and impact of the paper at hand.

• Web of Science Academy template (requires joining one of the free courses)
• PLoS’s review template
• Wiley’s peer review guide (not a template as such, but a thorough guide with questions to consider in the first and second reading of the manuscript)

Beyond following a template, it’s worth asking your editor or checking the journal’s peer review management system. That way, you’ll learn whether you need to follow a formal or specific peer review structure for that particular journal. If no such formal approach exists, try asking the editor for examples of other reviews performed for the journal. This will give you a solid understanding of what they expect from you.

Peer review examples

Understand what a constructive peer review looks like by learning from the experts.

Here’s a sample of pre and post-publication peer reviews displayed on Web of Science publication records to help guide you through your first few reviews. Some of these are transparent peer reviews , which means the entire process is open and visible — from initial review and response through to revision and final publication decision. You may wish to scroll to the bottom of these pages so you can first read the initial reviews, and make your way up the page to read the editor and author’s responses.

• Pre-publication peer review: Patterns and mechanisms in instances of endosymbiont-induced parthenogenesis
• Pre-publication peer review: Can Ciprofloxacin be Used for Precision Treatment of Gonorrhea in Public STD Clinics? Assessment of Ciprofloxacin Susceptibility and an Opportunity for Point-of-Care Testing
• Transparent peer review: Towards a standard model of musical improvisation
• Transparent peer review: Complex mosaic of sexual dichromatism and monochromatism in Pacific robins results from both gains and losses of elaborate coloration
• Post-publication peer review: Brain state monitoring for the future prediction of migraine attacks
• Web of Science Academy peer review: Students’ Perception on Training in Writing Research Article for Publication

F1000 has also put together a nice list of expert reviewer comments pertaining to the various aspects of a review report.

Co-reviewing

Co-reviewing (sharing peer review assignments with senior researchers) is one of the best ways to learn peer review. It gives researchers a hands-on, practical understanding of the process.

In an article in The Scientist , the team at Future of Research argues that co-reviewing can be a valuable learning experience for peer review, as long as it’s done properly and with transparency. The reason there’s a need to call out how co-reviewing works is because it does have its downsides. The practice can leave early-career researchers unaware of the core concepts of peer review. This can make it hard to later join an editor’s reviewer pool if they haven’t received adequate recognition for their share of the review work. (If you are asked to write a peer review on behalf of a senior colleague or researcher, get recognition for your efforts by asking your senior colleague to verify the collaborative co-review on your Web of Science researcher profiles).

The Web of Science Academy course ‘Co-reviewing with a mentor’ is uniquely practical in this sense. You will gain experience in peer review by practicing on real papers and working with a mentor to get feedback on how their peer review can be improved. Students submit their peer review report as their course assignment and after internal evaluation receive a course certificate, an Academy graduate badge on their Web of Science researcher profile and is put in front of top editors in their field through the Reviewer Locator at Clarivate.

Here are some external peer review resources found around the web:

• Peer Review Resources from Sense about Science
• Peer Review: The Nuts and Bolts by Sense about Science
• How to review journal manuscripts by R. M. Rosenfeld for Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery
• Ethical guidelines for peer review from COPE
• An Instructional Guide for Peer Reviewers of Biomedical Manuscripts by Callaham, Schriger & Cooper for Annals of Emergency Medicine (requires Flash or Adobe)
• EQUATOR Network’s reporting guidelines for health researchers

And finally, we’ve written a number of blogs about handy peer review tips. Check out some of our top picks:

• How to Write a Peer Review: 12 things you need to know
• Want To Peer Review? Top 10 Tips To Get Noticed By Editors
• Review a manuscript like a pro: 6 tips from a Web of Science Academy supervisor
• How to write a structured reviewer report: 5 tips from an early-career researcher

Want to learn more? Become a master of peer review and connect with top journal editors. The Web of Science Academy – your free online hub of courses designed by expert reviewers, editors and Nobel Prize winners. Find out more today.

Related posts

Reimagining research impact: introducing web of science research intelligence.

Beyond discovery: AI and the future of the Web of Science

Clarivate welcomes the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information

Facilitating Effective Peer Review Sessions

Main navigation.

PWR is committed to the use of small-group writing workshops.  While some students doubt the value of peer group work, when well executed these groups can be both effective and enjoyable.  While some instructors keep students in the same small groups all quarter, other instructors create new student groups for every assignment. Both strategies have merit.

Peer Review Group Suggestions

• Pay attention to the way you present the concept of peer review to your students.  Explain clearly the rationale for doing this activity and demonstrate your commitment to it. 
• Make the work count. You may assign points for it as a part of your class activities and informal writing component of your grade; remember that you need to be transparent in your evaluation criteria for anything that you are “grading,” including group work.
• Prepare clear and specific Peer Response Guideline Sheets for each peer response session.
• In a remote learning context, consider creating peer review groups by student time zone, especially if the peer review groups are meeting outside of class time.
• Spend some time with each group.  Take notes on the activity, on how well the group is working; who is contributing strong, focused responses; who needs to improve, etc.
• At the end of the session, remind the students to turn in all their peer responses with their revised essays.
• Take time to respond briefly but cogently to each peer response, noting areas of strength and weakness and ways in which the responder can offer more explicit and helpful advice.
• Take time in the next class to refer to some of the most useful comments made in peer response and specify why they are more helpful than others.
• Be patient.  Experienced instructors say that getting the groups working well together takes several weeks; with persistence and encouragement from you, they will get there.
• Consider changing the peer response structure. For instance, have the peer groups act as the editorial board of a journal.

See also some examples of peer review sheets from our PWR Canvas Archive

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Peer Review Presentation

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

This presentation is designed to acquaint your students with the concept of peer review. This presentation will include the who, what, where, when, and why of peer review. The slides presented here are designed to aid the facilitator in an interactive presentation of the elements of peer review. This presentation is ideal for any level of writing, including freshman composition.

40 Peer Review

Learning Objectives

• Identify benefits to collaborative work.
• Examine cultural considerations for offering feedback.
• Use a systematic process for offering feedback.
• Use language constructive language to offer feedback.
• Use feedback to make edits to the speech outline.
• Use feedback to practice speech.

Collaborative work = Stronger Finished Product

The benefits of collaborative work are numerous. Peer review allows us to share our work and receive feedback that will help us to strengthen our final product. 

Important benefits for your speech development are:

• Learning from one another: Learning is collaborative. We can learn just as much from one another as we can from course materials. We have different experiences and interpret course concepts in different ways. Peer review allows us to share these ideas.
• Clarified goals:  When offering review and editing suggestions, we are forced to focus on the assignment goals. This focus allows us to catch things they may have otherwise missed.
• Strengthen speechwriting skills: The process provides opportunities for us to identify and articulate weaknesses in a peer’s outline. When doing this, we are learning at a deeper level and can use our own feedback to strengthen our outlines.
• Idea Clarification:   As students explain ideas to classmates, they can identify where content development may be lacking. This provides opportunities to strengthen the outline content for audience clarification.
• Minimizes Procrastination: Often students will wait until the last minute to prepare their speech outline. The peer review process forces students to prepare in enough time to work through edits and revisions which are necessary for effective speech development.
• Builds Confidence: Public speaking is a nerve-wracking event for many of us. Having others validate our work and provide suggestions for improvement helps us to build confidence that our final product is strong!

Engaging in Peer Review

The peer-review process can be an exceptional tool if you engage in it effectively. Below are tips…

• Read/Listen first: Read through the entire outline or watch the entire speech before offering comments. Once you get a good idea of the content then you can go back through it and give feedback.
• Ask questions: Clarifying questions can provide you with information about your partner’s thought process so you can give more effective feedback. Also, questions can provide your partner with an opportunity to think through how they can better explain concepts or ideas in their speech. Questions are a great learning tool.
• Use the course materials: Use the readings, assignment descriptions, and rubrics to structure your feedback. This will help you focus on useful feedback. Look for both format and content issues. Both of these will be necessary for a successful outline or speech delivery.
• Mix criticism and praise: Knowing our strengths and our weaknesses are equally important for our speech development. Offer feedback on what you think they did well and what you think they need to improve.
• Describe what you are reading or hearing and your understanding of the content (paraphrase and clarify, “this is what I am hearing…”).
• Evaluate the outline or speech based on the rubric, assignment sheet, or class material.
• Suggest steps for improvement.
• Write out your thoughts: Even if you are talking through your feedback, offering written feedback will be more helpful when your partner is revising the work.

Effective approaches to offering feedback

• Use phrases such as, “From what I understand, in this section you are…”, “It seems to me that the focus of this section is…”, “I am not sure I understand the main point here. It seems to me that…”
• Ask questions when you are uncertain about something. “What is the purpose of this section? ” or “Why is it important to your paper? ” or “How do these points connect? or “What do you mean by…?”
• Be specific about content, speech parts, format, etc. The more specific you are, the more helpful you are. “In this section, it appears…” or “This comment is…” or “I am not certain how this support connects….”
• Remember to praise strengths. “Your use of language is great” or “You have strong introduction elements.”

Techniques of Constructive Criticism

The goal of constructive criticism is to improve the behavior or the behavioral results of a person, while consciously avoiding personal attacks and blaming. This kind of criticism is carefully framed in language acceptable to the target person, often acknowledging that the critics themselves could be wrong.

Insulting and hostile language is avoided, and phrases used are like “I feel…” and “It’s my understanding that…” and so on. Constructive critics try to stand in the shoes of the person being criticized and consider what things would look like from their perspective.

Effective criticism should be:

• Positively intended, and appropriately motivated: you are not only sending back messages about how you are receiving the other’s message but about how you feel about the other person and your relationship with him/her. Keeping this in mind will help you to construct effective critiques.
• Specific: allowing the individual to know exactly what behavior is to be considered.
• Objective, so that the recipient not only gets the message but is willing to do something about it. If your criticism is objective, it is much harder to resist.
• Constructive, consciously avoiding personal attacks and blaming, insulting language, and hostile language are avoided. Avoiding evaluative language—such as “you are wrong” or “that idea was stupid”—reduces the need for the receiver to respond defensively.

As the name suggests, the consistent and central notion is that the criticism must have the aim of constructing, scaffolding, or improving a situation, a goal that is usually subverted by the use of hostile language or personal attacks.

Effective criticism can change what people think and do; thus, criticism is the birthplace of change. Effective criticism can also be liberating. It can fight ideas that keep people down with ideas that unlock new opportunities, while consciously avoiding personal attacks and blaming.

Cultural Groups Approach Criticism with Different Styles

A culture is a system of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that form distinctive ways of life. Different cultural groups have different ways of communicating both verbally and non-verbally. While globalization and media have moderated many of the traditional differences for younger audiences, it is wise to consider five important areas where cultural differences could play a role when giving and receiving criticism:

• Verbal style in low and high context cultures
• Instrumental versus affective message responsibility
• Collectivism and individualism in cultures
• “Face”
• Eye contact

Verbal Style in Low and High Context Cultures

In low context cultures such as in the United States and Germany, there is an expectation that people will say what is on their mind directly; they will not “beat around the bush.” In high context cultures, such as in Japan and China, people are more likely to use indirect speech, hints, and subtle suggestions to convey meaning.

Responsibility for Effectively Conveying a Message

Is the speaker responsible for conveying a message, or the audience? The  instrumental  style of speaking is sender-orientated; the burden is on the speaker to make him or herself understood. The  affective  style is receiver-orientated and places more responsibility on the listener. With this style, the listener must pay attention to verbal, nonverbal, and relationship clues in order to understand the message. Chinese, Japanese, and many Native American cultures are affective cultures, whereas the American culture is more instrumental. Think about sitting in your college classroom listening to a lecturer. If you do not understand the material, where does the responsibility lie? In the United States, students believe that it is up to the professor to communicate the material to the students. However, when posing this question to a group of Chinese students, you may encounter a different sense of responsibility. Listeners who were raised in a more affective environment respond with “no, it’s not you; it is our job to try harder.” These kinds of students accept responsibility as listeners who work to understand the speaker.

Collectivism and Individualism

Are the speaker and listeners from collectivist or individualistic cultures? When a person or culture has a collective orientation they place the needs and interests of the group above individual desires or motivations. In contrast, cultures with individualistic orientations view the self as most important. Each person is viewed as responsible for his or her own success or failure in life. When you provide feedback or criticism if you are from an individualistic culture, you may speak directly to one individual and that individual will be responsible. However, if you are speaking with someone from a culture which is more collectivist, your feedback may be viewed as shared by all the members of the same group, who may assume responsibility for the actions of each other.

Face  is usually thought of as a sense of self-worth, especially in the eyes of others. Research with Chinese university students showed that they view a loss of face as a failure to measure up to one’s sense of self-esteem or what is expected by others. In more individualistic cultures, speakers and listeners are concerned with maintaining their own face and not so much focused on that of others. However, in an intercultural situation involving collectivist cultures, the speaker should not only be concerned with maintaining his or her own face, but also that of the listeners.

Receiving Feedback

You will receive feedback from a peer to revise your speech content and delivery. Accepting any criticism at all, even effective and potentially helpful criticism, can be difficult. Ideally, effective criticism is positive, specific, objective, and constructive. There is an art to being truly effective with criticism; a critic can have good intentions but poor delivery, for example, “I don’t know why my girlfriend keeps getting mad when I tell her to stop eating so many french fries; I’m just concerned about her weight!” For criticism to be truly effective, it must have the goal of improving a situation, without using hostile language or involving personal attacks.

Receiving criticism is a listening skill that is valuable in many situations throughout life: at school, at home, and in the workplace. Since it is not always easy to do, here are three things that will help to receive effective criticism gracefully:

• Accept that you are not perfect . If you begin every task thinking that nothing will ever go wrong, you are fooling yourself. You will make mistakes. The important thing is to learn from mistakes .
• Be open-minded to the fact that others may see something that you do not . Even if you do not agree with the criticism, others may be seeing something that you are not even aware of. If they say that you are negative or overbearing, and you do not feel that you are, well, you might be and are just not able to see it. Allow for the fact that others may be right, and use that possibility to look within yourself.
• Seek clarity about aspects of a critique that you are not sure of.  If you do not understand the criticism, you are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. Take notes and ask questions.

Sometimes it is easier said than done, but receiving effective criticism offers opportunities to see things differently, improve performance, and learn from mistakes.

Key Takeaways

• Peer review strengthens our final product, offers us a deeper learning experience, and boosts our confidence in our final product.
• Using a systematic method helps us to offer helpful and useful feedback.
• Using language that communicates a desire to help can have a positive influence on the peer review process.

Cho, Kwangsu, Christian D. Schunn, and Davida Charney. “Commenting on Writing: Typology and Perceived Helpfulness of Comments from Novice Peer Reviewers and Subject Matter Experts.”  Written Communication  23.3 (2006): 260-294.

Eli Review. (2014, December 19). Describe-evaluate-suggest: Giving helpful feedback, with Bill Hart-Davidson [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzdBRRQhYv4

Graff, Nelson. “Approaching Authentic Peer Review.”  The English Journal  95.5 (2009): 81-89.

Nilson, Linda B. “Improving Student Peer Feedback.”  College Teaching  51.1 (2003): 34-38.

“Using Peer Review to Help Students Improve Writing.”    The Teaching Center .  Washington University in St. Louis. n.d. Web. 1 June 2014.

Public Speaking Copyright © by Dr. Layne Goodman; Amber Green, M.A.; and Various is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

10 Strategies to Make Peer Review Meaningful for Students

EdTech , Teaching | 0 comments

“A peer review can be a very mysterious process, and certainly a scary one, which is why we need to talk more about how it’s done.”- Wyn Kelley, Lecturer, Literature, MIT

One of the most powerful means of encouraging student engagement and learning is through peer review, or guiding students to both critique and encourage each other as they develop speeches, presentations, and paper drafts. Peer review activities enable students to seek guidance from others, and to gain an objective idea of the quality of their thinking and their ability to organize and present their own thoughts. Peer review, effectively, is what enables students to become better thinkers and communicators.

For some students, it can be difficult to provide concrete, actionable, and descriptive feedback to their peers. As Thomas Levenson, Professor in Writing and Humanistic Studies, MIT notes, many students are uncomfortable critiquing peers. To make sure students know that peer assessment should be constructive, he tells students that “they only get to say, ‘I liked it’ once per class.” It’s important that instructors give students a set of prompts that guide students, and enable them to see how they can be most productive and explicit in giving feedback. Grant Wiggins of Authentic Education , suggests that helpful feedback follows the following 7 criteria. It is 1) goal-referenced; 2) transparent; 3) actionable; 4) user-friendly; 5) timely; 6) ongoing; and 7) consistent. Peer feedback should, above all, provide students with a sense of closure as to where to go next.

Video: “No One Writes Alone” from MIT Video

At Acclaim, instructors from Communication and Public Speaking, as well as Entrepreneurship, Science and Digital Storytelling courses, have shared some of the prompts they send to students as they ask them to give peer evaluations of presentations. The following are 10 prompts for peer review, compiled from assignments across the disciplines; with 5 prompts on content and presentation skills, and 5 on technology:

CONTENT AND PRESENTATION:

1. What is the speaker’s main point?

2. How is the speech structured? Does the speaker have a distinct introduction and conclusion? Where does he signpost his argument?

3. How does the speaker use evidence and analysis? Do examples elaborate on facts? Can you tell the difference between broad ideas and details?

4. Is the amount of time the speaker spends on each point proportional to its importance to his argument?

5. How does the speaker engage the audience? Some things to comment on: voice level, tone, level of interest/excitement in subject, eye contact, responses/attitudes towards questions, approachability. How did his movement and gestures coordinate with content?

VISUALS/TECHNOLOGY

1. How well did the speaker coordinate his timing with the visuals?

2. Were the visuals relevant to the speech, and if so, how did they enhance it? Did the speaker adequately explain them?

3. Were the visuals clear, independently of the speaker? Voice any ideas about animations or graphics.

4. Did the speaker seem comfortable with the technology he/she used? How does the speaker respond to technological difficulties (if there were any?)

5. Are there any additional visuals that might have helped to enhance the speakers point?

While these prompts can be used in any context, real or online, they can be especially effective when both the presenters, as well as the reviewers, have the “the time to adequately reflect on the content presented and technology used before delivering feedback,” according to Robin Cooper , Professor of Biology and Neuroscience, University of Kentucky. Student feedback, when delivered in written form online, can take the pressure and discomfort off of class communication. Moreover, we’ve found that when students have the chance to review their own recorded presentations, the suggestions of their peers become increasingly actionable. For more great reading and suggestions on peer review and assessment, check out the following resources:

Annie Murphy Paul: “ From the Brilliant Report: How to Give Good Feedback .”

Cynthia C. Choi and Hsiang-ju Ho: “ Exploring New Literacies in Online Peer-Learning Environments ”

Gale Morris, “ Using Peer Review to Improve Student Writing .”

Disclaimer » Advertising

• HealthyChildren.org

• Previous Article
• Next Article

What is the Purpose of Peer Review?

What makes a good peer reviewer, how do you decide whether to review a paper, how do you complete a peer review, limitations of peer review, conclusions, research methods: how to perform an effective peer review.

• Split-Screen
• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• CME Quiz Close Quiz
• Open the PDF for in another window
• Get Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Elise Peterson Lu , Brett G. Fischer , Melissa A. Plesac , Andrew P.J. Olson; Research Methods: How to Perform an Effective Peer Review. Hosp Pediatr November 2022; 12 (11): e409–e413. https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2022-006764

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

Scientific peer review has existed for centuries and is a cornerstone of the scientific publication process. Because the number of scientific publications has rapidly increased over the past decades, so has the number of peer reviews and peer reviewers. In this paper, drawing on the relevant medical literature and our collective experience as peer reviewers, we provide a user guide to the peer review process, including discussion of the purpose and limitations of peer review, the qualities of a good peer reviewer, and a step-by-step process of how to conduct an effective peer review.

Peer review has been a part of scientific publications since 1665, when the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society became the first publication to formalize a system of expert review. 1 , 2   It became an institutionalized part of science in the latter half of the 20 th century and is now the standard in scientific research publications. 3   In 2012, there were more than 28 000 scholarly peer-reviewed journals and more than 3 million peer reviewed articles are now published annually. 3 , 4   However, even with this volume, most peer reviewers learn to review “on the (unpaid) job” and no standard training system exists to ensure quality and consistency. 5   Expectations and format vary between journals and most, but not all, provide basic instructions for reviewers. In this paper, we provide a general introduction to the peer review process and identify common strategies for success as well as pitfalls to avoid.

Modern peer review serves 2 primary purposes: (1) as “a screen before the diffusion of new knowledge” 6   and (2) as a method to improve the quality of published work. 1 , 5  

As screeners, peer reviewers evaluate the quality, validity, relevance, and significance of research before publication to maintain the credibility of the publications they serve and their fields of study. 1 , 2 , 7   Although peer reviewers are not the final decision makers on publication (that role belongs to the editor), their recommendations affect editorial decisions and thoughtful comments influence an article’s fate. 6 , 8  

As advisors and evaluators of manuscripts, reviewers have an opportunity and responsibility to give authors an outside expert’s perspective on their work. 9   They provide feedback that can improve methodology, enhance rigor, improve clarity, and redefine the scope of articles. 5 , 8 , 10   This often happens even if a paper is not ultimately accepted at the reviewer’s journal because peer reviewers’ comments are incorporated into revised drafts that are submitted to another journal. In a 2019 survey of authors, reviewers, and editors, 83% said that peer review helps science communication and 90% of authors reported that peer review improved their last paper. 11  

Expertise: Peer reviewers should be up to date with current literature, practice guidelines, and methodology within their subject area. However, academic rank and seniority do not define expertise and are not actually correlated with performance in peer review. 13  

Professionalism: Reviewers should be reliable and objective, aware of their own biases, and respectful of the confidentiality of the peer review process.

Critical skill : Reviewers should be organized, thorough, and detailed in their critique with the goal of improving the manuscript under their review, regardless of disposition. They should provide constructive comments that are specific and addressable, referencing literature when possible. A peer reviewer should leave a paper better than he or she found it.

Is the manuscript within your area of expertise? Generally, if you are asked to review a paper, it is because an editor felt that you were a qualified expert. In a 2019 survey, 74% of requested reviews were within the reviewer’s area of expertise. 11   This, of course, does not mean that you must be widely published in the area, only that you have enough expertise and comfort with the topic to critique and add to the paper.

Do you have any biases that may affect your review? Are there elements of the methodology, content area, or theory with which you disagree? Some disagreements between authors and reviewers are common, expected, and even helpful. However, if a reviewer fundamentally disagrees with an author’s premise such that he or she cannot be constructive, the review invitation should be declined.

Do you have the time? The average review for a clinical journal takes 5 to 6 hours, though many take longer depending on the complexity of the research and the experience of the reviewer. 1 , 14   Journals vary on the requested timeline for return of reviews, though it is usually 1 to 4 weeks. Peer review is often the longest part of the publication process and delays contribute to slower dissemination of important work and decreased author satisfaction. 15   Be mindful of your schedule and only accept a review invitation if you can reasonably return the review in the requested time.

Once you have determined that you are the right person and decided to take on the review, reply to the inviting e-mail or click the associated link to accept (or decline) the invitation. Journal editors invite a limited number of reviewers at a time and wait for responses before inviting others. A common complaint among journal editors surveyed was that reviewers would often take days to weeks to respond to requests, or not respond at all, making it difficult to find appropriate reviewers and prolonging an already long process. 5  

Now that you have decided to take on the review, it is best of have a systematic way of both evaluating the manuscript and writing the review. Various suggestions exist in the literature, but we will describe our standard procedure for review, incorporating specific do’s and don’ts summarized in Table 1 .

Dos and Don’ts of Peer Review

First, read the manuscript once without making notes or forming opinions to get a sense of the paper as whole. Assess the overall tone and flow and define what the authors identify as the main point of their work. Does the work overall make sense? Do the authors tell the story effectively?

Next, read the manuscript again with an eye toward review, taking notes and formulating thoughts on strengths and weaknesses. Consider the methodology and identify the specific type of research described. Refer to the corresponding reporting guideline if applicable (CONSORT for randomized control trials, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews). Reporting guidelines often include a checklist, flow diagram, or structured text giving a minimum list of information needed in a manuscript based on the type of research done. 16   This allows the reviewer to formulate a more nuanced and specific assessment of the manuscript.

Next, review the main findings, the significance of the work, and what contribution it makes to the field. Examine the presentation and flow of the manuscript but do not copy edit the text. At this point, you should start to write your review. Some journals provide a format for their reviews, but often it is up to the reviewer. In surveys of journal editors and reviewers, a review organized by manuscript section was the most favored, 5 , 6   so that is what we will describe here.

As you write your review, consider starting with a brief summary of the work that identifies the main topic, explains the basic approach, and describes the findings and conclusions. 12 , 17   Though not universally included in all reviews, we have found this step to be helpful in ensuring that the work is conveyed clearly enough for the reviewer to summarize it. Include brief notes on the significance of the work and what it adds to current knowledge. Critique the presentation of the work: is it clearly written? Is its length appropriate? List any major concerns with the work overall, such as major methodological flaws or inaccurate conclusions that should disqualify it from publication, though do not comment directly on disposition. Then perform your review by section:

Abstract : Is it consistent with the rest of the paper? Does it adequately describe the major points?

Introduction : This section should provide adequate background to explain the need for the study. Generally, classic or highly relevant studies should be cited, but citations do not have to be exhaustive. The research question and hypothesis should be clearly stated.

Methods: Evaluate both the methods themselves and the way in which they are explained. Does the methodology used meet the needs of the questions proposed? Is there sufficient detail to explain what the authors did and, if not, what needs to be added? For clinical research, examine the inclusion/exclusion criteria, control populations, and possible sources of bias. Reporting guidelines can be particularly helpful in determining the appropriateness of the methods and how they are reported.

Some journals will expect an evaluation of the statistics used, whereas others will have a separate statistician evaluate, and the reviewers are generally not expected to have an exhaustive knowledge of statistical methods. Clarify expectations if needed and, if you do not feel qualified to evaluate the statistics, make this clear in your review.

Results: Evaluate the presentation of the results. Is information given in sufficient detail to assess credibility? Are the results consistent with the methodology reported? Are the figures and tables consistent with the text, easy to interpret, and relevant to the work? Make note of data that could be better detailed in figures or tables, rather than included in the text. Make note of inappropriate interpretation in the results section (this should be in discussion) or rehashing of methods.

Discussion: Evaluate the authors’ interpretation of their results, how they address limitations, and the implications of their work. How does the work contribute to the field, and do the authors adequately describe those contributions? Make note of overinterpretation or conclusions not supported by the data.

The length of your review often correlates with your opinion of the quality of the work. If an article has major flaws that you think preclude publication, write a brief review that focuses on the big picture. Articles that may not be accepted but still represent quality work merit longer reviews aimed at helping the author improve the work for resubmission elsewhere.

Generally, do not include your recommendation on disposition in the body of the review itself. Acceptance or rejection is ultimately determined by the editor and including your recommendation in your comments to the authors can be confusing. A journal editor’s decision on acceptance or rejection may depend on more factors than just the quality of the work, including the subject area, journal priorities, other contemporaneous submissions, and page constraints.

Many submission sites include a separate question asking whether to accept, accept with major revision, or reject. If this specific format is not included, then add your recommendation in the “confidential notes to the editor.” Your recommendation should be consistent with the content of your review: don’t give a glowing review but recommend rejection or harshly criticize a manuscript but recommend publication. Last, regardless of your ultimate recommendation on disposition, it is imperative to use respectful and professional language and tone in your written review.

Although peer review is often described as the “gatekeeper” of science and characterized as a quality control measure, peer review is not ideally designed to detect fundamental errors, plagiarism, or fraud. In multiple studies, peer reviewers detected only 20% to 33% of intentionally inserted errors in scientific manuscripts. 18 , 19   Plagiarism similarly is not detected in peer review, largely because of the huge volume of literature available to plagiarize. Most journals now use computer software to identify plagiarism before a manuscript goes to peer review. Finally, outright fraud often goes undetected in peer review. Reviewers start from a position of respect for the authors and trust the data they are given barring obvious inconsistencies. Ultimately, reviewers are “gatekeepers, not detectives.” 7  

Peer review is also limited by bias. Even with the best of intentions, reviewers bring biases including but not limited to prestige bias, affiliation bias, nationality bias, language bias, gender bias, content bias, confirmation bias, bias against interdisciplinary research, publication bias, conservatism, and bias of conflict of interest. 3 , 4 , 6   For example, peer reviewers score methodology higher and are more likely to recommend publication when prestigious author names or institutions are visible. 20   Although bias can be mitigated both by the reviewer and by the journal, it cannot be eliminated. Reviewers should be mindful of their own biases while performing reviews and work to actively mitigate them. For example, if English language editing is necessary, state this with specific examples rather than suggesting the authors seek editing by a “native English speaker.”

Peer review is an essential, though imperfect, part of the forward movement of science. Peer review can function as both a gatekeeper to protect the published record of science and a mechanism to improve research at the level of individual manuscripts. Here, we have described our strategy, summarized in Table 2 , for performing a thorough peer review, with a focus on organization, objectivity, and constructiveness. By using a systematized strategy to evaluate manuscripts and an organized format for writing reviews, you can provide a relatively objective perspective in editorial decision-making. By providing specific and constructive feedback to authors, you contribute to the quality of the published literature.

Take-home Points

FUNDING: No external funding.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Dr Lu performed the literature review and wrote the manuscript. Dr Fischer assisted in the literature review and reviewed and edited the manuscript. Dr Plesac provided background information on the process of peer review, reviewed and edited the manuscript, and completed revisions. Dr Olson provided background information and practical advice, critically reviewed and revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript.

Advertising Disclaimer »

Citing articles via

Email alerts.

Affiliations

• Editorial Board
• Editorial Policies
• Pediatrics On Call
• Online ISSN 2154-1671
• Print ISSN 2154-1663
• Pediatrics Open Science
• Hospital Pediatrics
• Pediatrics in Review
• AAP Grand Rounds
• Latest News
• Pediatric Care Online
• Red Book Online
• Pediatric Patient Education
• AAP Toolkits
• AAP Pediatric Coding Newsletter

First 1,000 Days Knowledge Center

Institutions/librarians, group practices, licensing/permissions, integrations, advertising.

• Privacy Statement | Accessibility Statement | Terms of Use | Support Center | Contact Us
• © Copyright American Academy of Pediatrics

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

How it works

Transform your enterprise with the scalable mindsets, skills, & behavior change that drive performance.

Explore how BetterUp connects to your core business systems.

We pair AI with the latest in human-centered coaching to drive powerful, lasting learning and behavior change.

Build leaders that accelerate team performance and engagement.

Unlock performance potential at scale with AI-powered curated growth journeys.

Build resilience, well-being and agility to drive performance across your entire enterprise.

Transform your business, starting with your sales leaders.

Unlock business impact from the top with executive coaching.

Foster a culture of inclusion and belonging.

Accelerate the performance and potential of your agencies and employees.

See how innovative organizations use BetterUp to build a thriving workforce.

Discover how BetterUp measurably impacts key business outcomes for organizations like yours.

A demo is the first step to transforming your business. Meet with us to develop a plan for attaining your goals.

• What is coaching?

Learn how 1:1 coaching works, who its for, and if it's right for you.

Accelerate your personal and professional growth with the expert guidance of a BetterUp Coach.

Types of Coaching

Navigate career transitions, accelerate your professional growth, and achieve your career goals with expert coaching.

Enhance your communication skills for better personal and professional relationships, with tailored coaching that focuses on your needs.

Find balance, resilience, and well-being in all areas of your life with holistic coaching designed to empower you.

Discover your perfect match : Take our 5-minute assessment and let us pair you with one of our top Coaches tailored just for you.

Research, expert insights, and resources to develop courageous leaders within your organization.

Best practices, research, and tools to fuel individual and business growth.

View on-demand BetterUp events and learn about upcoming live discussions.

The latest insights and ideas for building a high-performing workplace.

• BetterUp Briefing

The online magazine that helps you understand tomorrow's workforce trends, today.

Innovative research featured in peer-reviewed journals, press, and more.

Founded in 2022 to deepen the understanding of the intersection of well-being, purpose, and performance

We're on a mission to help everyone live with clarity, purpose, and passion.

Join us and create impactful change.

Read the buzz about BetterUp.

Meet the leadership that's passionate about empowering your workforce.

For Business

For Individuals

30 presentation feedback examples

Jump to section

You're doing great

You should think of improving

Tips to improve

3 things to look for when providing presentation feedback

3 tips for giving effective feedback.

We’re all learning as we go. 

And that’s perfectly OK — that’s part of being human. On my own personal growth journey, I know I need to get better at public speaking and presenting. It’s one of those things that doesn’t necessarily come naturally to me. 

And I know there are plenty of people in my shoes. So when it comes to presenting in the workplace, it can be intimidating. But there’s one thing that can help people continue to get better at presentations: feedback . 

The following examples not only relate to presentations. They can also be helpful for public speaking and captivating your audience. 

You’re doing great 

• You really have the natural ability to hand out presentation material in a very organized way! Good job!
• Your presentations are often compelling and visually stunning. You really know how to effectively captivate the audience. Well done!
• You often allow your colleagues to make presentations on your behalf. This is a great learning opportunity for them and they often thrive at the challenge.
• Keeping presentations focused on key agenda items can be tough, but you’re really good at it. You effectively outline exactly what it is that you will be discussing and you make sure you keep to it. Well done!!
• You created downloadable visual presentations and bound them for the client. Excellent way to portray the company! Well done!
• Your content was relevant and your format was visually appealing and easy to follow and understand. Great job! You’re a real designer at heart!
• You always remain consistent with the way you present and often your presentations have the same style and layout. This is great for continuity. Well done!
• You always remain consistent with every presentation, whether it be one on ones, small group chats, with peers, direct reports, and the company bosses. You have no problem presenting in any one of these situations. Well done!
• You are an effective presenter both to employees and to potential clients. When controversial topics come up, you deal with them in a timely manner and you make sure these topics are fully dealt with before moving on. Well done!
• You effectively command attention and you have no problem managing groups during the presentation.

You should think of improving 

• You’re a great presenter in certain situations, but you struggle to present in others. Try to be more consistent when presenting so that you get one single-minded message across. This will also help you broaden your presentation skills by being able to portray one single idea or message.
• You tend to be a little shy when making presentations. You have the self-confidence in one-on-one conversations , so you definitely have the ability to make compelling presentations. Come on! You can do it!
• During presentations, there seems to be quite a lack of focus . I know it can be difficult to stick to the subject matter, however you need to in order for people to understand what the presentation is about and what is trying to be achieved.
• To engage with your audience and make them attentively listen to what you have to say, you need to be able to use your voice in an effective manner to achieve this. Try to focus on certain words that require extra attention and emphasis these words during your presentation.
• Knowing your audience is critical to the success of any presentation. Learn to pick up on their body language and social cues to gauge your style and tone. Listen to what your audience has to say and adjust your presentation accordingly.

• During presentations, it’s expected that there will be tough questions . Try to prepare at least a couple of days before the time so that you can handle these questions in an effective manner.
• To be an effective presenter you need to be able to adjust to varying audiences and circumstances. Try learning about who will be in the room at the time of the presentation and adjust accordingly.
• Remember not to take debate as a personal attack. You tend to lose your cool a little too often, which hinders the discussion and people feel alienated. You can disagree without conflict .
• The only way you are going to get better at public speaking is by practicing, practicing, practicing. Learn your speech by heart, practice in the mirror, practice in front of the mirror. Eventually, you’ll become a natural and you won't be afraid of public speaking any longer.
• Your presentations are beautiful and I have no doubt you have strong presentation software skills. However, your content tends to be a bit weak and often you lack the substance. Without important content, the presentation is empty.

Tips to improve 

• Remember it’s always good to present about the things you are passionate about . When you speak to people about your passions they can sense it. The same goes for presentations. Identify what it is that excites you and somehow bring it into every presentation. it’ll make it easier to present and your audience will feel the energy you portray.
• Sometimes it can be easier to plan with the end result in mind. Try visualizing what it is you are exactly expecting your audience to come away with and develop your presentation around that.
• Simplicity is a beautiful thing. Try to keep your presentations as simple as possible. Make it visually appealing with the least amount of words possible. Try interactive pictures and videos to fully immerse your audience in the presentation.
• It’s a fine balance between winging the presentation and memorizing the presentation. If you wing it too much it may come across as if you didn't prepare. If you memorize it, the presentation may come off a bit robotic. Try to find the sweet spot, if you can.
• When presenting, try to present in a way that is cause for curiosity . Make people interested in what you have to say to really captivate them. Have a look at some TED talks to get some tips on how you can go about doing this.
• Remember presentations should be about quality, not quantity. Presentations that are text-heavy and go on for longer than they should bore your audience and people are less likely to remember them.
• Try to arrive at every staff meeting on time and always be well prepared. This will ensure that meetings will go smoothly in the future.
• Remember to respect other people's time by always arriving on time or five minutes before the presentation.
• Remember to ask the others in the meeting for their point of view if there are individuals during presentations.
• If you notice presentations are deviating off-topic, try to steer it back to the important topic being discussed.

Presentation feedback can be intimidating. It’s likely the presenter has spent a good deal of time and energy on creating the presentation.

As an audience member, you can hone in on a few aspects of the presentation to help frame your feedback. If it's an oral presentation, you should consider also audience attention and visual aids.

It’s important to keep in mind three key aspects of the presentation when giving feedback. 

Communication

• Were the key messages clear? 
• Was the speaker clear and concise in their language?
• Did the presenter clearly communicate the key objectives? 
• Did the presenter give the audience clear takeaways? 
• How well did the presenter’s voice carry in the presentation space? 

Delivery 

• Was the presentation engaging? 
• How well did the presenter capture their audience? 
• Did the presenter engage employees in fun or innovative ways? 
• How interactive was the presentation? 
• How approachable did the presenter appear? 
• Was the presentation accessible to all? 

Body language and presence 

• How did the presenter carry themselves? 
• Did the presenter make eye contact with the audience? 
• How confident did the presenter appear based on nonverbal communication? 
• Were there any nonverbal distractions to the presentation? (i.e. too many hand gestures, facial expressions, etc.)  

There are plenty of benefits of feedback . But giving effective feedback isn’t an easy task. Here are some tips for giving effective feedback. 

1. Prepare what you’d like to say 

I’m willing to bet we’ve all felt like we’ve put our foot in our mouth at one point or another. Knee-jerk, emotional reactions are rarely helpful. In fact, they can do quite the opposite of help. 

Make sure you prepare thoughtfully. Think through what feedback would be most impactful and helpful for the recipient. How will you word certain phrases? What’s most important to communicate? What feedback isn’t helpful to the recipient? 

You can always do practice runs with your coach. Your coach will serve as a guide and consultant. You can practice how you’ll give feedback and get feedback … on your feedback. Sounds like a big loop, but it can be immensely helpful. 

2. Be direct and clear (but lead with empathy) 

Have you ever received feedback from someone where you’re not quite sure what they’re trying to say? Me, too. 

I’ve been in roundabout conversations where I walk away even more confused than I was before. This is where clear, direct, and concise communication comes into play. 

Be clear and direct in your message. But still, lead with empathy and kindness . Feedback doesn’t need to be harsh or cruel. If it’s coming from a place of care, the recipient should feel that care from you. 

3. Create dialogue (and listen carefully) 

Feedback is never a one-way street. Without the opportunity for dialogue, you’re already shutting down and not listening to the other person. Make sure you’re creating space for dialogue and active listening . Invite questions — or, even better, feedback. You should make the person feel safe, secure, and trusted . You should also make sure the person feels heard and valued. 

Your point of view is just that: it's one perspective. Invite team members to share their perspectives, including positive feedback . 

You might also offer the recipient the opportunity for self-evaluation . By doing a self-evaluation, you can reflect on things like communication skills and confidence. They might come to some of the same important points you did — all on their own.

Now, let’s go practice that feedback 

We're all learners in life.

It's OK to not be perfect . In fact, we shouldn't be. We're perfectly imperfect human beings, constantly learning , evolving, and bettering ourselves. 

The same goes for tough things like presentations. You might be working on perfecting your students' presentation. Or you might want to get better at capturing your audience's attention. No matter what, feedback is critical to that learning journey . 

Even a good presentation has the opportunity for improvement . Don't forget the role a coach can play in your feedback journey.

Your coach will be able to provide a unique point of view to help you better communicate key points. Your coach can also help with things like performance reviews , presentation evaluations, and even how to communicate with others.

Elevate your communication skills

Unlock the power of clear and persuasive communication. Our coaches can guide you to build strong relationships and succeed in both personal and professional life.

Madeline Miles

Madeline is a writer, communicator, and storyteller who is passionate about using words to help drive positive change. She holds a bachelor's in English Creative Writing and Communication Studies and lives in Denver, Colorado. In her spare time, she's usually somewhere outside (preferably in the mountains) — and enjoys poetry and fiction.

How to not be nervous for a presentation — 13 tips that work (really!)

6 presentation skills and how to improve them, josh bersin on the importance of talent management in the modern workplace, how to give a good presentation that captivates any audience, 8 clever hooks for presentations (with tips), how to make a presentation interactive and exciting, reading the room gives you an edge — no matter who you're talking to, the self presentation theory and how to present your best self, coaching insider: trusting your team as a new manager, similar articles, 30 communication feedback examples, 30 leadership feedback examples for managers, your guide to what storytelling is and how to be a good storyteller, 30 customer service review examples to develop your team, stay connected with betterup, get our newsletter, event invites, plus product insights and research..

3100 E 5th Street, Suite 350 Austin, TX 78702

• Platform Overview
• Integrations
• Powered by AI
• BetterUp Lead
• BetterUp Manage™
• BetterUp Care™
• Sales Performance
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Case Studies
• Why BetterUp?
• About Coaching
• Find your Coach
• Career Coaching
• Communication Coaching
• Life Coaching
• News and Press
• Leadership Team
• Become a BetterUp Coach
• BetterUp Labs
• Center for Purpose & Performance
• Leadership Training
• Business Coaching
• Contact Support
• Contact Sales
• Privacy Policy
• Acceptable Use Policy
• Trust & Security
• Cookie Preferences

• LibGuides Home (current)
• Collections & Services
• General Research
• Resource Specific
• Scholarly & Research
• Subject & Topic
• Course & Assignment

Peer Review and Research

• Annual Library Symposium This link opens in a new window
• Committee Info This link opens in a new window
• Clear Goals
• Adequate Preparation
• Appropriate Methods
• Significant Results

Effective Presentation

Recommended reading.

• Reflective Critique
• Submitting Papers to Peer Reviewed Publications
• Toolbox for Library Researchers

Schedule a Pre or Post Conference Presentation

• Lunchtime brown bag: Noon - 1:00 p.m.
• Late afternoon coffee/tea brown bag: after 3:00 p.m.
• Types of Presentation
• Additional Suggestions for Success

Communication

• The work should clearly communicate the content without calls for clarification.
• If written for the general public, simplification of terms and provision of background information would allow attendees to easily grasp the concepts and research results being reported. 
• If written for fellow scholars and researchers, the content would presume no need for topic education is necessary, that terminology is consistent with the subject area, and research reporting would be at the level of scholarly writing.
• The work should be free of grammatical and punctuation errors.
• Numbers and data, if used, should be presented in a manner which makes understanding easy to achieve.

Ask yourself:

• Does the content wording and use of terms match the intended audience?
• Is evidence presented logically and use appropriately?
• Is the work clearly and succinctly organized?
• Are discussions and research results of subjects, either individual or groups, presented in an objective and respectful manner?
• Are sensitive topics and issues presented with thoughtfulness and courtesy?
• Works submitted for publication in traditional print resources should follow the publisher’s guide to submissions, especially criteria involving relevant value to the readers.
• Works submitted for publication in an electronic format – web site, digital, PDF, etc. – should be cognizant of the type of format and the format’s strengths in appealing to the reader by use of technology, programming, and audio or video motion.
• Is the work suitable to the audience targeted?
• Does the work present an appropriate and suitable style?
• The work should clearly state the purpose of the work, the goals that were designed, the results that occurred, any differences between the goals and the results, and the importance of the research results to the audience or area of interest.
• The author should demonstrate scholarship in the field by the quality of supporting evidence, research method, research results, and interpretation of those results.
• Is the work objective in its content and presentation?
• Are conclusions reached without predeterminations and outside influence?
• Is there sufficient evidence, both in terms of amount and substance, to effectively support the outcome?
• Does the work provide new evidence or research results that would be of interest to the field, practitioners, and scholars?

Blogs, Listservs, and Social Media

Electronic presentations are a great way to gage collegial ideas and opinions about the topic you have selected to pursue.  These formats can be done at varying and convenient times.

• Online brevity is the best – adopt Twitter’s 140 character limit, and select words carefully.
• Use simple statements.
• DON’T SHOUT.
• Seek feedback and comments.

Exhibits consist of a visual display of a collection, program, initiative, or body of work (i.e. paintings, drawings, prints, posters, photography, sculpture, ceramics, video, installation, multi-media).

• Include a general statement of purpose and statements to provide an intellectual context both for the collection as a whole and for its individual pieces.
• Be prepared to respond to comments and questions.

Facilitated Discussions

Facilitated discussions involve the arranging of attendees into groups, such as tables or round chair setup, and provide topics for discussion.  Topics can be the same for all attendees and groups, or vary by group.

• Provide a brief introduction – remember that you are not the presenter, and the discussions are the purpose of this event.
• Develop discussion points, topics, and questions well in advance by polling registered attendees.
• Be willing to accept ad-hoc discussion topics relevant to the content.
• Provide for adequate Q&A and open comment time at the end.
• Ensure that the majority of time allotted for the event is reserved for discussion and report-back.
• Record group report-back’s on flip charts or other method, so that attendees may view the report-back comments as they are read out, and receive a written copy after the event.
• Foster collegial conversational exchange.
• Mingle among the groups or tables to see if attendees are participating, but avoid becoming involved in their discussions.

Keynote Address

The keynote address is perhaps the most challenging presentation.  What you say and how well you communicate your ideas, research, findings, and experience sets the tone for the event.  High level competency and established experience are the minimum content goals.  See Oral Presentations for additional guidance.

• Presentation much be absolutely relevant to the event.
• This is a stand-alone presentation.
• Be prepared to “wow” the audience with a dynamic content, excellent slides, well developed public speaking skills, and inspiration.
• Professional credibility is presumed.

Oral Presentations

Oral presentations involve the presentation of a paper or research project with or without visual aids.  This is an excellent opportunity to share research findings with colleagues, seek comments, listen to advice, and facilitate discussion and comment.

• Focus on the purpose, methodology, challenges, and findings of the research.
• Report laboratory and data results, if applicable.
• Clearly provide the reason that motivated research interest and commencement.
• Disclose the strengths and weakness of the research process, and what was learned from failures.
• PowerPoint presentations should be well done.  See PowerPoint Use in Presentation for more details.
• Subject mastery is presumed.
• Expect questions and comments that indicate doubt or disagreement, and respond collegially.
• Include a Q&A section at the end of the presentation.
• Provide contact information.

Panel Discussions

Panel discussions involve a limited number of panelists, usually 3-5, presenting and discussing their views on a scholarly topic and responding to audience questions.

• Select speakers from different perspectives to give balanced presentations.
• Before finalizing speaker selection, discuss panel content and purpose to ensure that potential speakers understand the purpose of the panel discussion.
• Ask panelists to state their points concisely and clearly, mindful of the limited time for each panelist.
• Anticipate questions from both the audience and panelists.
• Defer comment and questions from the audience to panelists.
• Provide ample time for individual presentations, statements, general discussion, and Q&A.

Peer Review Publications

Poster sessions.

Posters present a visual display of work on poster boards. Presenters should be able to provide a scholarly introduction to their work and be prepared to entertain the viewers’ questions.

• Include both charts and pictures.
• Develop an eye catching format and design.
• Brevity works best, both for what is on the poster and for answering visitors.
• Have a one-sheet handout for the main take-away points, including your contact information.
• Have business cards available.
• Be prepared for many repeats of your 60-second verbal summary.
• Expect fast and furious turnovers.
• Balance the content – not too sparse but not too detailed and complex.

PowerPoint Use in Presentations

Using PowerPoint or any slide programmed should be viewed as a supplemental visual tool for many types of presentations.  They should not be treated as “the” presentation.

• Don’t read from the slides.
• Look at the screen as little as possible.
• Present from knowledge and experience, not from the slides.
• Slides should be limited in numbers and complexity.
• Charts, graphics, pictures, and other inserts should be simple and visually clear.
• Sound, video, and images add value, if content relevant.
• Use bullet points. PowerPoint slides do not need full sentences, and should never have a paragraph full of information.
• Use images effectively. You should have as little text as possible on the slide. One way to accomplish this is to have images on each slide, accompanied by a small amount of text.
• Slides provide focus and guidance, not full details.
• Never put your presentation on the slides and read from the slides.

Workshops consist of a brief presentation followed by interaction with the audience. The purpose of a workshop is to introduce the audience to your subject and involve them in using a skill or technique.  Learning objectives and anticipated outcomes should be clearly stated.

• Content should be timely and relevant.
• Content should be take-away – attendees should be able to leave the workshop, go back to their jobs, and begin brainstorming ideas, developing strategies, and implementing projects soon.
• Go short on theories and long on how-to methods.
• Develop learning objectives and anticipated outcomes, and build content around these goals.
• Develop an agenda that more resembles a syllabus.
• Select preparation materials, such as articles and documents to read before the workshop.
• Include data but do not overwhelm attendees with too much or complex data.
• Provide a bibliography or list of suggested readings.

Academic Presentation Formula

Newbies are strongly encouraged to follow this formula.  Later and with experience, deviation from the formula is more feasible.

• Introduction/Overview/Hook
• Theoretical Framework/Research Question
• Methodology/Case Selection
• Background/Literature Review
• Discussion of Data/Results
• Q&A, if permitted

The Audience Is Ready to Listen

Avoid presenting too much information about what is already known, and provide this information, if needed, in the introduction.  Only discuss literature and background information that relates directly to the topic and research results being presented.  Keep this portion of the presentation to five minutes or less.  More time will be needed for the presentation of the research results and audience questions and comments.

Practice Practice Practice

Practice the presentation from start to finish before delivering the presentation – several times.  Repeated practicing provides delivery confidence, efficient time management, and better speaking skills.  Make sure the presentation fits within the time parameters. Practicing also makes it flow better.

Keep To the Time Limit

If the time allotted for the presentation is ten minutes, prepare ten minutes of material.  Regardless of the amount of time provided, a little or a lot, finish within or at the end of the allotted time.  Practice the presentation with a stopwatch to ensure complicity.

• << Previous: Significant Results
• Next: Reflective Critique >>
• Last Updated: Sep 26, 2023 12:52 PM
• URL: https://library.fiu.edu/PeerReview

Information

Fiu libraries floorplans, green library, modesto a. maidique campus, hubert library, biscayne bay campus.

Directions: Green Library, MMC

Directions: Hubert Library, BBC

"Culture and morale changed overnight! In under 2 months, we’ve had over 2,000 kudos sent and 80%+ engagement across all employees."

President at M&H

Recognition and Rewards all inside Slack or Microsoft Teams

Free To Try. No Credit Card Required.

Celebrate wins together and regularly for all to see

Redeem coins for gift cards, company rewards & donations

Start a weekly recognition habit with automatic reminders

Automatically celebrate birthdays and work anniversaries

10x your response rate, instantly with surveys inside Slack/Teams

Gather continuous, real-time feedback and insights

Discover insights from recognition

Have questions? Send us a message

How teams are building culture with employee recognition and rewards

Advice and answers from the Matter team

Helpful videos to fully experience Matter

Peer Review Examples (+14 Phrases to Use)

‍ Table of Contents:

Peer review feedback examples, what are the benefits of peer review feedback examples, what are peer review feedback examples, 5 key parts of good peer review examples, 14 examples of performance review phrases, how do you give peer review feedback to remote teams, the benefits of a feedback culture, how to implement a strong feedback culture.

A peer review is a type of evaluative feedback. It focuses on the strengths and areas of improvement for yourself, your team members, and even the organization as a whole. This form of evaluation can benefit all parties involved, helping to build self-awareness and grow in new ways that we might not have realized before. Of course, the best examples of peer review feedback are those that are well-received and effective in the workplace, which we will go over in the next section.

As mentioned, peer review feedback is a great way to identify your strengths and weaknesses and those of others. The benefits are two-fold: it helps you grow in new ways that may have been difficult for you before, while also making sure everyone involved feels confident about their abilities moving forward.

For instance, organizations with robust feedback cultures can close any gaps that hinder their performance and seize business opportunities whenever they present themselves. This dual benefit gives them competitive advantages that allow them to grow, along with a more positive workplace. Leading companies that enjoy these types of advantages include Cargill, Netflix, and Google. Peer review feedback can also be a great tool to use for conducting your annual performance reviews. They give managers visibility and insights that might not be possible otherwise. The feedback can help you better understand how your employees view their performance, as well as what they think the company's expectations are of them. This opportunity is especially helpful for those who work remotely—it allows managers to see things that might be missed otherwise.

For example, if an employee works from home often or telecommutes frequently, it can be more difficult for managers to get a sense of how they are doing. This is where peer review feedback comes in—if their peers notice issues that need attention, this provides the manager with valuable insights that might otherwise have gone unnoticed. Everyone must be on the same page about what exactly it is they want from these sessions and how their employees will benefit from receiving them.

A Gallup poll revealed that organizations that give their employees regular feedback have turnover rates that are almost 15% lower than for those employees that didn't receive any. This statistic indicates that regular reviews, including peer reviews, are important. However, so is giving the right kind of peer review feedback.

As such, when you have a peer review session, think about some good examples of the type of feedback that might be beneficial for both parties. These would be the relevant peer review examples you want to use for your organization.

One example would be to discuss ways in which the employee’s performance may have been exemplary when you give them their peer review feedback forms . This conversation gives the person being reviewed an idea about how well they're doing and where their strengths lie in the form of positive feedback. 

On the other hand, it also helps them know there is room for improvement where they may not have realized it before in the form of negative feedback.

Another example would be to discuss how you might improve how the person being reviewed conducts themselves on a day-to-day basis. Again, this action can help someone realize how their performance can be improved and provide them with suggestions that they might not have thought of before.

For example, you may notice that a team member tends to talk more than is necessary during meetings or wastes time by doing unnecessary tasks when other pressing matters are at hand. This type of negative feedback would allow the person receiving it to know what areas they need to work on and how they can improve themselves.

As mentioned previously, peer reviews are a great way of giving an employee concrete suggestions for the areas in which they need improvement, as well as those where their performance is exemplary.

To ensure that your team feels valued and confident moving forward, you should give them the best examples of peer review feedback possible. The following are five examples of what constitutes good peer review feedback:

1. Use anonymity. Keeping them anonymous so that the employee review makes workers feel comfortable with the content and don't feel any bias has entered the review process.

2. Scheduling them frequently enough. A good employee experience with peer reviews involves scheduling them often enough so that no one has an unwelcome surprise come annual or biannual performance appraisal time.

3. Keep them objective & constructive. Keep peer review feedback objective and constructive—your goal is to help improve the peers you're reviewing so they can continue to do an even better job than before!

4. Having key points to work on. Ask questions such as: what is the goal? And what does the company want people to get out of each session?

5. The right people giving the peer review . Personnel familiar with the employee's work should be the ones doing the employee evaluation, rating the reviewer's performance, and providing peer feedback.

You can use the following positive performance appraisal phrases to recognize and coach your employees for anything from regularly scheduled peer reviews to biannual and annual appraisals:

• "I can always count on you to..." ‍
• "You are a dependable employee who meets all deadlines." ‍
• "Your customer service is excellent. You make everyone feel welcome and comfortable, no matter how busy things get." ‍
• "The accounting work that you do for our team helps us out in the long run." ‍
• "I appreciate your helpfulness when it comes to training new employees. You always seem willing to take some time out of your day, even though you're busy with other tasks, to show them how we do things here at [COMPANY]." ‍
• "It's so nice to see you staying on top of your work. You never miss a deadline, and that is very important here at [COMPANY]." ‍
• "I can always count on you when I need something done immediately." ‍
• "Your communication skills are exceptional, and I appreciate the way you always get your point across clearly." ‍
• "You are always willing to lend an ear if someone needs help or has a question about something. You're great at being the go-to person when people need advice." ‍
• "I appreciate your ability to anticipate our customers' needs."

Negative performance review phrases can be helpful if handled the right way and often contribute to improving the employee's performance. 

Here are some examples of effective negative performance review phrases you can use:

• "You seem to struggle with following the company's processes. I would like to see you get better at staying on top of what needs to be done and getting it done on time." ‍
• "I'm concerned that your work quality has slipped lately. You're still meeting deadlines, but some of your work seems rushed or incomplete. I want to make sure that you're giving everything the attention it deserves." ‍
• "I noticed that you've been getting a lot of customer complaints lately. Is there anything going on? Maybe we can work together and come up with some solutions for how things could be better handled in the future?" ‍
• "You seem overwhelmed right now, and it's affecting your work quality. I want to help you figure out how we can better distribute the workload so that you're not feeling like this anymore."

When giving peer review feedback to remote teams, it is essential for everyone involved that the employee being reviewed feels comfortable and respected. And whether a peer or direct report gives the remote employee a review, the most effective way to ensure this happens is by providing open communication and constructive feedback throughout the process.

However, when you work remotely, it can be difficult to get the opportunity for peer feedback. However, there are ways of ensuring that such a process is still beneficial and productive.

The following are some examples of how to go about giving effective peer review feedback when working virtually:

• Take advantage of webcams or video conferencing to make sure that you can see the employee's facial expressions and monitor body language during a performance review, remote or otherwise. ‍
• Just like with any in-person performance review, it's critical to schedule a regular time for sessions so they don't catch anyone by surprise. ‍
• Make it clear at both your end as well as theirs what the overall goal is—this helps them prepare ahead of time and ensures there are no unforeseen surprises. ‍
• Ensure that you keep the feedback objective with constructive criticism, as this is what will allow them to improve their performance in a way that they can take advantage of immediately. Include all these key points in your company peer review templates also. ‍
• Be prepared for these sessions by having a list of key points you want to cover with your peer reviewer—this helps guide the conversation while ensuring no important points are overlooked.

When employees enjoy their work, understand their goals, and know the values and competencies of the job, job satisfaction increases, along with their performance. In addition, the link between productivity and effective feedback is well established. For instance, 69% of workers said they would work harder if their efforts were recognized, according to LinkedIn.

Continuous and regularly scheduled performance appraisal feedback helps with employee development, clarifies expectations, aligns goals, and motivates staff (check out our article Peer Review Feedback to find out why peer feedback is so essential), establishing a positive workplace. Lastly, a workplace that dedicates itself to motivating people to be better will improve employee engagement and the levels of performance.

If you haven't implemented a culture for using feedback yet, there are several effective ways to go about it. One good way to kick things off is to first identify teams or some other similar organizational unit and have them experiment with the social feedback system.

While the frequency of peer reviews should be given every three to four weeks, or even at the end of a project sprint , the cycles for building a strong feedback culture can be quarterly or monthly, depending on your preferences and operations.

After the three cycles are finalized, you typically have built up enough feedback information to start the organization on its path to a strong feedback culture.

Knowing these peer review feedback examples and tips on giving them to remote teams will help you become more comfortable with this type of evaluative discussion. It can be difficult at first, but remember that the benefits are worth it! And remember: when giving peer review feedback, make sure you keep each session objective. This helps ensure they're constructive and that both parties walk away feeling as though they've learned a lot from them.

Want to keep that morale sky-high during Feedback Friday and the peer review process? If so, be sure to check out Matter , with features that allow you to give public Kudos all inside Slack.

Start Employee Recognition, Rewards, & Surveys

Recognition, Rewards & Surveys all in Slack or Teams

• Performance Management

Peer Review Examples: Powerful Phrases You Can Use

• October 30, 2023

The blog is tailored for HR professionals looking to set up and improve peer review feedback within their organization. Share the article with your employees as a guide to help them understand how to craft insightful peer review feedback.

Effective employee performance evaluation plays a pivotal role in both personal growth and the maintenance of a productive, harmonious work environment. When considering the comprehensive perspective of 360-degree evaluation, peer review feedback emerges as a crucial element. In this article, we’ll explore the importance of peer review feedback and equip you with powerful peer review examples to facilitate the process.

Peer review feedback is the practice of colleagues and co-workers assessing and providing meaningful feedback on each other’s performance. It is a valuable instrument that helps organizations foster professional development, teamwork, and continuous improvement.

Peoplebox lets you conduct effective peer reviews within minutes. You can customize feedback, use tailored surveys, and seamlessly integrate it with your collaboration tools. It’s a game-changer for boosting development and collaboration in your team.

Why are Peer Reviews Important?

Here are some compelling reasons why peer review feedback is so vital:

Broader Perspective: Peer feedback offers a well-rounded view of an employee’s performance. Colleagues witness their day-to-day efforts and interactions, providing a more comprehensive evaluation compared to just a supervisor’s perspective.

Skill Enhancement: It serves as a catalyst for skill enhancement. Constructive feedback from peers highlights areas of improvement and offers opportunities for skill development.

Encourages Accountability: Peer review fosters a culture of accountability . Knowing that one’s work is subject to review by peers can motivate individuals to perform at their best consistently.

Team Cohesion: It strengthens team cohesion by promoting open communication. and constructive communication. Teams that actively engage in peer feedback often develop a stronger sense of unity and shared purpose.

Fair and Unbiased Assessment: By involving colleagues, peer review helps ensure a fair and unbiased assessment. It mitigates the potential for supervisor bias and personal favoritism in performance evaluations.

Identifying Blind Spots: Peers can identify blind spots that supervisors may overlook. This means addressing issues at an early stage, preventing them from escalating.

Motivation and Recognition: Positive peer feedback can motivate employees and offer well-deserved recognition for their efforts. Acknowledgment from colleagues can be equally, if not more, rewarding than praise from higher-ups.

Now, let us look at the best practices for giving peer feedback in order to leverage its benefits effectively.

30 Positive Peer Feedback Examples

Now that we’ve established the importance of peer review feedback, the next step is understanding how to use powerful phrases to make the most of this evaluation process.  In this section, we’ll equip you with various examples of phrases to use during peer reviews, making the journey more confident and effective for you and your team .

Must Read: 60+ Self-Evaluation Examples That Can Make You Shine

Peer Review Example on Work Quality

When it comes to recognizing excellence, quality work is often the first on the list. Here are some peer review examples highlighting the work quality:

• “Kudos to Sarah for consistently delivering high-quality reports that never fail to impress both clients and colleagues. Her meticulous attention to detail and creative problem-solving truly set the bar high.”
• “John’s attention to detail and unwavering commitment to excellence make his work a gold standard for the entire team. His consistently high-quality contributions ensure our projects shine.”
• “Alexandra’s dedication to maintaining the project’s quality standards sets a commendable benchmark for the entire department. Her willingness to go the extra mile is a testament to her work ethic and quality focus.”
• “Patrick’s dedication to producing error-free code is a testament to his commitment to work quality. His precise coding and knack for bug spotting make his work truly outstanding.”

Peer Review Examples on Competency and Job-Related Skills

Competency and job-related skills set the stage for excellence. Here’s how you can write a peer review highlighting this particular skill set:

• “Michael’s extensive knowledge and problem-solving skills have been instrumental in overcoming some of our most challenging technical hurdles. His ability to analyze complex issues and find creative solutions is remarkable. Great job, Michael!”
• “Emily’s ability to quickly grasp complex concepts and apply them to her work is truly commendable. Her knack for simplifying the intricate is a gift that benefits our entire team.”
• “Daniel’s expertise in data analysis has significantly improved the efficiency of our decision-making processes. His ability to turn data into actionable insights is an invaluable asset to the team.”
• “Sophie’s proficiency in graphic design has consistently elevated the visual appeal of our projects. Her creative skills and artistic touch add a unique, compelling dimension to our work.”

Peer Review Sample on Leadership Skills

Leadership ability extends beyond a mere title; it’s a living embodiment of vision and guidance, as seen through these exceptional examples:

• “Under Lisa’s leadership, our team’s morale and productivity have soared, a testament to her exceptional leadership skills and hard work. Her ability to inspire, guide, and unite the team in the right direction is truly outstanding.”
• “James’s ability to inspire and lead by example makes him a role model for anyone aspiring to be a great leader. His approachability and strong sense of ethics create an ideal leadership model.”
• “Rebecca’s effective delegation and strategic vision have been the driving force behind our project’s success. Her ability to set clear objectives, give valuable feedback, and empower team members is truly commendable.”
• “Victoria’s leadership style fosters an environment of trust and innovation, enabling our team to flourish in a great way. Her encouragement of creativity and openness to diverse ideas is truly inspiring.”

Feedback on Teamwork and Collaboration Skills

Teamwork is where individual brilliance becomes collective success. Here are some peer review examples highlighting teamwork:

• “Mark’s ability to foster a collaborative environment is infectious; his team-building skills unite us all. His open-mindedness and willingness to listen to new ideas create a harmonious workspace.”
• “Charles’s commitment to teamwork has a ripple effect on the entire department, promoting cooperation and synergy. His ability to bring out the best in the rest of the team is truly remarkable.”
• “David’s talent for bringing diverse perspectives together enhances the creativity and effectiveness of our group projects. His ability to unite us under a common goal fosters a sense of belonging.”

Peer Review Examples on Professionalism and Work Ethics

Professionalism and ethical conduct define a thriving work culture. Here’s how you can write a peer review highlighting work ethics:

• “Rachel’s unwavering commitment to deadlines and ethical work practices is a model for us all. Her dedication to punctuality and ethics contributes to a culture of accountability.”
• “Timothy consistently exhibits the highest level of professionalism, ensuring our clients receive impeccable service. His courtesy and reliability set a standard of excellence.”
• “Daniel’s punctuality and commitment to deadlines set a standard of professionalism we should all aspire to. His sense of responsibility is an example to us all.”
• “Olivia’s unwavering dedication to ethical business practices makes her a trustworthy and reliable colleague. Her ethical principles create an atmosphere of trust and respect within our team, leading to a more positive work environment.”

Feedback on Mentoring and Support

Mentoring and support pave the way for future success. Check out these peer review examples focusing on mentoring:

• “Ben’s dedication to mentoring new team members is commendable; his guidance is invaluable to our junior colleagues. His approachability and patience create an environment where learning flourishes.”
• “David’s mentorship has been pivotal in nurturing the talents of several team members beyond his direct report, fostering a culture of continuous improvement. His ability to transfer knowledge is truly outstanding.”
• “Laura’s patient mentorship and continuous support for her colleagues have helped elevate our team’s performance. Her constructive feedback and guidance have made a remarkable difference.”
• “William’s dedication to knowledge sharing and mentoring is a driving force behind our team’s constant learning and growth. His commitment to others’ development is inspiring.”

Peer Review Examples on Communication Skills

Effective communication is the linchpin of harmonious collaboration. Here are some peer review examples to highlight your peer’s communication skills:

• “Grace’s exceptional communication skills ensure clarity and cohesion in our team’s objectives. Her ability to articulate complex ideas in a straightforward manner is invaluable.”
• “Oliver’s ability to convey complex ideas with simplicity greatly enhances our project’s success. His effective communication style fosters a productive exchange of ideas.”
• “Aiden’s proficiency in cross-team communication ensures that our projects move forward efficiently. His ability to bridge gaps in understanding is truly commendable.”

Peer Review Examples on Time Management and Productivity

Time management and productivity are the engines that drive accomplishments. Here are some peer review examples highlighting time management:

• “Ella’s time management is nothing short of exemplary; it sets a benchmark for us all. Her efficient task organization keeps our projects on track.”
• “Robert’s ability to meet deadlines and manage time efficiently significantly contributes to our team’s overall productivity. His time management skills are truly remarkable.”
• “Sophie’s time management skills are a cornerstone of her impressive productivity, inspiring us all to be more efficient. Her ability to juggle multiple tasks is impressive.”
• “Liam’s time management skills are key to his consistently high productivity levels. His ability to organize work efficiently is an example for all of us to follow.”

Though these positive feedback examples are valuable, it’s important to recognize that there will be instances when your team needs to convey constructive or negative feedback. In the upcoming section, we’ll present 40 examples of constructive peer review feedback. Keep reading!

40 Constructive Peer Review Feedback

Receiving peer review feedback, whether positive or negative, presents a valuable chance for personal and professional development. Let’s explore some examples your team can employ to provide constructive feedback , even in situations where criticism is necessary, with a focus on maintaining a supportive and growth-oriented atmosphere.

Constructive Peer Review Feedback on Work Quality

• “I appreciate John’s meticulous attention to detail, which enhances our projects. However, I noticed a few minor typos in his recent report. To maintain an impeccable standard, I’d suggest dedicating more effort to proofreading.”
• “Sarah’s research is comprehensive, and her insights are invaluable. Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity and brevity, I recommend distilling her conclusions to their most essential points.”
• “Michael’s coding skills are robust, but for the sake of team collaboration, I’d suggest that he provides more detailed comments within the code to enhance readability and consistency.”
• “Emma’s creative design concepts are inspiring, yet consistency in her chosen color schemes across projects could further bolster brand recognition.”
• “David’s analytical skills are thorough and robust, but it might be beneficial to present data in a more reader-friendly format to enhance overall comprehension.”
• “I’ve observed Megan’s solid technical skills, which are highly proficient. To further her growth, I recommend taking on more challenging projects to expand her expertise.”
• “Robert’s industry knowledge is extensive and impressive. To become a more well-rounded professional, I’d suggest he focuses on honing his client relationship and communication skills.”
• “Alice’s project management abilities are impressive, and she’s demonstrated an aptitude for handling complexity. I’d recommend she refines her risk assessment skills to excel further in mitigating potential issues.”
• “Daniel’s presentation skills are excellent, and his reports are consistently informative. Nevertheless, there is room for improvement in terms of interpreting data and distilling it into actionable insights.”
• “Laura’s sales techniques are effective, and she consistently meets her targets. I encourage her to invest time in honing her negotiation skills for even greater success in securing deals and partnerships.”

Peer Review Examples on Leadership Skills

• “I’ve noticed James’s commendable decision-making skills. However, to foster a more inclusive and collaborative environment, I’d suggest he be more open to input from team members during the decision-making process.”
• “Sophia’s delegation is efficient, and her team trusts her leadership. To further inspire the team, I’d suggest she share credit more generously and acknowledge the collective effort.”
• “Nathan’s vision and strategic thinking are clear and commendable. Enhancing his conflict resolution skills is suggested to promote a harmonious work environment and maintain team focus.”
• “Olivia’s accountability is much appreciated. I’d encourage her to strengthen her mentoring approach to develop the team’s potential even further and secure a strong professional legacy.”
• “Ethan’s adaptability is an asset that brings agility to the team. Cultivating a more motivational leadership style is recommended to uplift team morale and foster a dynamic work environment.”

Peer Review Examples on Teamwork and Collaboration

• “Ava’s collaboration is essential to the team’s success. She should consider engaging more actively in group discussions to contribute her valuable insights.”
• “Liam’s teamwork is exemplary, but he could motivate peers further by sharing credit more openly and recognizing their contributions.”
• “Chloe’s flexibility in teamwork is invaluable. To become an even more effective team player, she might invest in honing her active listening skills.”
• “William’s contributions to group projects are consistently valuable. To maximize his impact, I suggest participating in inter-departmental collaborations and fostering cross-functional teamwork.”
• “Zoe’s conflict resolution abilities create a harmonious work environment. Expanding her ability to mediate conflicts and find mutually beneficial solutions is advised to enhance team cohesion.”
• “Noah’s punctuality is an asset to the team. To maintain professionalism consistently, he should adhere to deadlines with unwavering dedication, setting a model example for peers.”
• “Grace’s integrity and ethical standards are admirable. To enhance professionalism further, I’d recommend that she maintain a higher level of discretion in discussing sensitive matters.”
• “Logan’s work ethics are strong, and his commitment is evident. Striving for better communication with colleagues regarding project updates is suggested, ensuring everyone remains well-informed.”
• “Sophie’s reliability is appreciated. Maintaining a high level of attention to confidentiality when handling sensitive information would enhance her professionalism.”
• “Jackson’s organizational skills are top-notch. Upholding professionalism by maintaining a tidy and organized workspace is recommended.”

Peer Review Feedback Examples on Mentoring and Support

• “Aiden provides invaluable mentoring to junior team members. He should consider investing even more time in offering guidance and support to help them navigate their professional journeys effectively.”
• “Harper’s commendable support to peers is noteworthy. She should develop coaching skills to maximize their growth, ensuring their development matches their potential.”
• “Samuel’s patience in teaching is a valuable asset. He should tailor support to individual learning styles to enhance their understanding and retention of key concepts.”
• “Ella’s mentorship plays a pivotal role in the growth of colleagues. She should expand her role in offering guidance for long-term career development, helping them set and achieve their professional goals.”
• “Benjamin’s exceptional helpfulness fosters a more supportive atmosphere where everyone can thrive. He should encourage team members to seek assistance when needed.”
• “Mia’s communication skills are clear and effective. To cater to different audience types, she should use more varied communication channels to convey her message more comprehensively.”
• “Lucas’s ability to articulate ideas is commendable, and his verbal communication is strong. He should polish non-verbal communication to ensure that his body language aligns with his spoken message.”
• “Evelyn’s appreciated active listening skills create strong relationships with colleagues. She should foster stronger negotiation skills for client interactions, ensuring both parties are satisfied with the outcomes.”
• “Jack’s presentation skills are excellent. He should elevate written communication to match the quality of verbal presentations, offering more comprehensive and well-structured documentation.”
• “Avery’s clarity in explaining complex concepts is valued by colleagues. She should develop persuasive communication skills to enhance her ability to secure project proposals and buy-in from stakeholders.”

Feedback on Time Management and Productivity

• “Isabella’s efficient time management skills contribute to the team’s success. She should explore time-tracking tools to further optimize her workflow and maximize her efficiency.”
• “Henry’s remarkable productivity sets a high standard. He should maintain a balanced approach to tasks to prevent burnout and ensure sustainable long-term performance.”
• “Luna’s impressive task prioritization and strategic time allocation should be fine-tuned with goal-setting techniques to ensure consistent productivity aligned with objectives.”
• “Leo’s great deadline adherence is commendable. He should incorporate short breaks into the schedule to enhance productivity and focus, allowing for the consistent meeting of high standards.”
• “Mila’s multitasking abilities are a valuable skill. She should strive to implement regular time-blocking sessions into the daily routine to further enhance time management capabilities.”

Do’s and Don’t of Peer Review Feedback

Peer review feedback can be extremely helpful for intellectual growth and professional development. Engaging in this process with thoughtfulness and precision can have a profound impact on both the reviewer and the individual seeking feedback.

However, there are certain do’s and don’ts that must be observed to ensure that the feedback is not only constructive but also conducive to a positive and productive learning environment.

The Do’s of Peer Review Feedback:

Empathize and Relate : Put yourself in the shoes of the person receiving the feedback. Recognize the effort and intention behind their work, and frame your comments with sensitivity.

Ground Feedback in Data : Base your feedback on concrete evidence and specific examples from the work being reviewed. This not only adds credibility to your comments but also helps the recipient understand precisely where improvements are needed.

Clear and Concise Writing : Express your thoughts in a clear and straightforward manner. Avoid jargon or ambiguous language that may lead to misinterpretation.

Offer Constructive Criticism : Focus on providing feedback that can guide improvement. Instead of simply pointing out flaws, suggest potential solutions or alternatives.

Highlight Strength s: Acknowledge and commend the strengths in the work. Recognizing what’s done well can motivate the individual to build on their existing skills.

The Don’ts of Peer Review Feedback:

Avoid Ambiguity : Vague or overly general comments such as “It’s not good” do not provide actionable guidance. Be specific in your observations.

Refrain from Personal Attacks : Avoid making the feedback personal or overly critical. Concentrate on the work and its improvement, not on the individual.

Steer Clear of Subjective Opinions : Base your feedback on objective criteria and avoid opinions that may not be universally applicable.

Resist Overloading with Suggestions : While offering suggestions for improvement is important, overwhelming the recipient with a laundry list of changes can be counterproductive.

Don’t Skip Follow-Up : Once you’ve provided feedback, don’t leave the process incomplete. Follow up and engage in a constructive dialogue to ensure that the feedback is understood and applied effectively.

Remember that the art of giving peer review feedback is a valuable skill, and when done right, it can foster professional growth, foster collaboration, and inspire continuous improvement. This is where performance management software like Peoplebox come into play.

Start Collecting Peer Review Feedback On Peoplebox 

In a world where the continuous improvement of your workforce is paramount, harnessing the potential of peer review feedback is a game-changer. Peoplebox offers a suite of powerful features that revolutionize performance management, simplifying the alignment of people with business goals and driving success. Want to experience it first hand? Take a quick tour of our product.

Through Peoplebox, you can effortlessly establish peer reviews, customizing key aspects such as:

• Allowing the reviewee to select their peers
• Seeking managerial approval for chosen peers to mitigate bias
• Determining the number of peers eligible for review, and more.

And the best part? Peoplebox lets you do all this from right within Slack.

Peer Review Feedback Template That You Can Use Right Away

Still on the fence about using software for performance reviews? Here’s a quick ready-to-use peer review template you can use to kickstart the peer review process.

Download the Free Peer Review Feedback Form here.

If you ever reconsider and are looking for a more streamlined approach to handle 360 feedback, give Peoplebox a shot!

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is peer review feedback important.

Peer review feedback provides a well-rounded view of employee performance, fosters skill enhancement, encourages accountability, strengthens team cohesion, ensures fair assessment, and identifies blind spots early on.

How does peer review feedback benefit employees?

Peer review feedback offers employees valuable insights for growth, helps them identify areas for improvement, provides recognition for their efforts, and fosters a culture of collaboration and continuous learning.

What are some best practices for giving constructive peer feedback?

Best practices include grounding feedback in specific examples, offering both praise and areas for improvement, focusing on actionable suggestions, maintaining professionalism, and ensuring feedback is clear and respectful.

What role does HR software like Peoplebox play in peer review feedback?

HR software like Peoplebox streamlines the peer review process by allowing customizable feedback, integration with collaboration tools like Slack, easy selection of reviewers, and providing templates and tools for effective feedback.

How can HR professionals promote a culture of feedback and openness in their organization?

HR professionals can promote a feedback culture by leading by example, providing training on giving and receiving feedback, recognizing and rewarding constructive feedback, creating safe spaces for communication, and fostering a culture of continuous improvement.

Table of Contents

What’s Next?

Get Peoplebox Demo

Get a 30-min. personalized demo of our OKR, Performance Management and People Analytics Platform Schedule Now

Take Product Tour

Watch a product tour to see how Peoplebox makes goals alignment, performance management and people analytics seamless. Take a product tour

Subscribe to our blog & newsletter

Popular Categories

• One on Ones
• People Analytics
• Employee Engagement
• Strategy Execution
• Remote Work

Recent Blogs

Understanding Employee Attrition to Minimize It

HR Beginner’s Guide for the EU Pay Transparency Directive

50+ Inspirational Quotes for HR Professionals

• OKRs (Aligned Goals)
• Performance Reviews
• 360 Degree Employee Reviews
• Performance Reviews in Slack
• 1:1 Meetings
• Business Reviews
• Automated Engagement Survey
• Anonymous Messaging
• Engagement Insights
• Integrations
• Why Peoplebox
• Our Customers
• Customer Success Stories
• Product Tours
• Peoplebox Analytics Talk
• The Peoplebox Pulse Newsletter
• OKR Podcast
• OKR Examples
• One-on-one-meeting questions
• Performance Review Templates
• Request Demo
• Help Center
• Careers (🚀 We are hiring)
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• GDPR Compliance
• Data Processing Addendum
• Responsible Disclosure
• Cookies Policy

Share this blog

50 Great Peer Review Examples: Sample Phrases + Scenarios

Peer review is a concept that has multiple different applications and definitions. Depending on your field, the definition of peer review can change greatly.

In the workplace, the meaning of peer review or peer feedback is that it is simply the input of a peer or colleague on another peer’s performance, attitude, output, or any other performance metric .

While in the academic world peer review’s definition is the examination of an academic paper by another fellow scholar in the field.

Even in the American legal system , people are judged in front of a jury made up of their peers.

It is clear as day that peer feedback carries a lot of weight and power. The input from someone who has the same experience with you day in and day out is on occasion, more meaningful than the feedback from direct reports or feedback from managers .

So here are 50 peer review examples and sample peer feedback phrases that can help you practice peer-to-peer feedback more effectively!

Table of Contents

Peer Feedback Examples: Offering Peers Constructive Criticism

One of the most difficult types of feedback to offer is constructive criticism. Whether you are a chief people officer or a junior employee, offering someone constructive criticism is a tight rope to walk.

When you are offering constructive criticism to a peer? That difficulty level is doubled. People can take constructive criticism from above or below.

One place where criticism can really sting is when it comes from someone at their level. That is why the peer feedback phrases below can certainly be of help.

Below you will find 10 peer review example phrases that offer constructive feedback to peers:

• “I really appreciate the effort you’ve put into this project, especially your attention to detail in the design phase. I wonder if considering alternative approaches to the user interface might enhance user engagement. Perhaps we could explore some user feedback or current trends in UI design to guide us.”
• “Your presentation had some compelling points, particularly the data analysis section. However, I noticed a few instances where the connection between your arguments wasn’t entirely clear. For example, when transitioning from the market analysis to consumer trends, a clearer linkage could help the audience follow your thought process more effectively.”
• “I see you’ve put a lot of work into developing this marketing strategy, and it shows promise. To address the issue with the target demographic, it might be beneficial to integrate more specific market research data. I can share a few resources on market analysis that could provide some valuable insights for this section.”
• “You’ve done an excellent job balancing different aspects of the project, but I think there’s an opportunity to enhance the overall impact by integrating some feedback we received in the last review. For instance, incorporating more user testimonials could strengthen our case study section.”
• “Your report is well-structured and informative. I would suggest revisiting the conclusions section to ensure that it aligns with the data presented earlier. Perhaps adding a summary of key findings before concluding would reinforce the report’s main takeaways.”
• “In reviewing your work, I’m impressed by your analytical skills. I believe using ‘I’ statements could make your argument even stronger, as it would provide a personal perspective that could resonate more with the audience. For example, saying ‘I observed a notable trend…’ instead of ‘There is a notable trend…’ can add a personal touch.”
• “Your project proposal is thought-provoking and innovative. To enhance it further, have you considered asking reflective questions at the end of each section? This could encourage the reader to engage more deeply with the material, fostering a more interactive and thought-provoking dialogue.”
• “I can see the potential in your approach to solving this issue, and I believe with a bit more refinement, it could be very effective. Maybe a bit more focus on the scalability of the solution could highlight its long-term viability, which would be impressive to stakeholders.”
• “I admire the dedication you’ve shown in tackling this challenging project. If you’re open to it, I would be happy to collaborate on some of the more complex aspects, especially the data analysis. Together, we might uncover some additional insights that could enhance our findings.”
• “Your timely submission of the project draft is commendable. To make your work even more impactful, I suggest incorporating recent feedback we received on related projects. This could provide a fresh perspective and potentially uncover aspects we might not have considered.”

Sample Peer Review Phrases: Positive Reinforcement

Offering positive feedback to peers as opposed to constructive criticism is on the easier side when it comes to the feedback spectrum.

There are still questions that linger however, such as: “ How to offer positive feedback professionally? “

To help answer that question and make your life easier when offering positive reinforcements to peers, here are 10 positive peer review examples! Feel free to take any of the peer feedback phrases below and use them in your workplace in the right context!

• “Your ability to distill complex information into easy-to-understand visuals is exceptional. It greatly enhances the clarity of our reports.”
• “Congratulations on surpassing this quarter’s sales targets. Your dedication and strategic approach are truly commendable.”
• “The innovative solution you proposed for our workflow issue was a game-changer. It’s impressive how you think outside the box.”
• “I really appreciate the effort and enthusiasm you bring to our team meetings. It sets a positive tone that encourages everyone.”
• “Your continuous improvement in client engagement has not gone unnoticed. Your approach to understanding and addressing their needs is exemplary.”
• “I’ve noticed significant growth in your project management skills over the past few months. Your ability to keep things on track and communicate effectively is making a big difference.”
• “Thank you for your proactive approach in the recent project. Your foresight in addressing potential issues was key to our success.”
• “Your positive attitude, even when faced with challenges, is inspiring. It helps the team maintain momentum and focus.”
• “Your detailed feedback in the peer review process was incredibly helpful. It’s clear you put a lot of thought into providing meaningful insights.”
• “The way you facilitated the last workshop was outstanding. Your ability to engage and inspire participants sparked some great ideas.”

Peer Review Examples: Feedback Phrases On Skill Development

Peer review examples on talent development are one of the most necessary forms of feedback in the workplace.

Feedback should always serve a purpose. Highlighting areas where a peer can improve their skills is a great use of peer review.

Peers have a unique perspective into each other’s daily life and aspirations and this can quite easily be used to guide each other to fresh avenues of skill development.

So here are 10 peer sample feedback phrases for peers about developing new skillsets at work:

• “Considering your interest in data analysis, I think you’d benefit greatly from the advanced Excel course we have access to. It could really enhance your data visualization skills.”
• “I’ve noticed your enthusiasm for graphic design. Setting a goal to master a new design tool each quarter could significantly expand your creative toolkit.”
• “Your potential in project management is evident. How about we pair you with a senior project manager for a mentorship? It could be a great way to refine your skills.”
• “I came across an online course on persuasive communication that seems like a perfect fit for you. It could really elevate your presentation skills.”
• “Your technical skills are a strong asset to the team. To take it to the next level, how about leading a workshop to share your knowledge? It could be a great way to develop your leadership skills.”
• “I think you have a knack for writing. Why not take on the challenge of contributing to our monthly newsletter? It would be a great way to hone your writing skills.”
• “Your progress in learning the new software has been impressive. Continuing to build on this momentum will make you a go-to expert in our team.”
• “Given your interest in market research, I’d recommend diving into analytics. Understanding data trends could provide valuable insights for our strategy discussions.”
• “You have a good eye for design. Participating in a collaborative project with our design team could offer a deeper understanding and hands-on experience.”
• “Your ability to resolve customer issues is commendable. Enhancing your conflict resolution skills could make you even more effective in these situations.”

Peer Review Phrase Examples: Goals And Achievements

Equally important as peer review and feedback is peer recognition . Being recognized and appreciated by one’s peers at work is one of the best sentiments someone can experience at work.

Peer feedback when it comes to one’s achievements often comes hand in hand with feedback about goals.

One of the best goal-setting techniques is to attach new goals to employee praise . That is why our next 10 peer review phrase examples are all about goals and achievements.

While these peer feedback examples may not directly align with your situation, customizing them according to context is simple enough!

• “Your goal to increase client engagement has been impactful. Reviewing and aligning these goals quarterly could further enhance our outreach efforts.”
• “Setting a goal to reduce project delivery times has been a great initiative. Breaking this down into smaller milestones could provide clearer pathways to success.”
• “Your aim to improve team collaboration is commendable. Identifying specific collaboration tools and practices could make this goal even more attainable.”
• “I’ve noticed your dedication to personal development. Establishing specific learning goals for each quarter could provide a structured path for your growth.”
• “Celebrating your achievement in enhancing our customer satisfaction ratings is important. Let’s set new targets to maintain this positive trajectory.”
• “Your goal to enhance our brand’s social media presence has yielded great results. Next, we could focus on increasing engagement rates to build deeper connections with our audience.”
• “While striving to increase sales is crucial, ensuring we have measurable and realistic targets will help maintain team morale and focus.”
• “Your efforts to improve internal communication are showing results. Setting specific objectives for team meetings and feedback sessions could further this progress.”
• “Achieving certification in your field was a significant milestone. Now, setting a goal to apply this new knowledge in our projects could maximize its impact.”
• “Your initiative to lead community engagement projects has been inspiring. Let’s set benchmarks to track the positive changes and plan our next steps in community involvement.”

Peer Evaluation Examples: Communication Skills

The last area of peer feedback we will be covering in this post today is peer review examples on communication skills.

Since the simple act of delivering peer review or peer feedback depends heavily on one’s communication skills, it goes without saying that this is a crucial area.

Below you will find 10 sample peer evaluation examples that you can apply to your workplace with ease.

Go over each peer review phrase and select the ones that best reflect the feedback you want to offer to your peers!

• “Your ability to articulate complex ideas in simple terms has been a great asset. Continuously refining this skill can enhance our team’s understanding and collaboration.”
• “The strategies you’ve implemented to improve team collaboration have been effective. Encouraging others to share their methods can foster a more collaborative environment.”
• “Navigating the recent conflict with diplomacy and tact was impressive. Your approach could serve as a model for effective conflict resolution within the team.”
• “Your active listening during meetings is commendable. It not only shows respect for colleagues but also ensures that all viewpoints are considered, enhancing our decision-making process.”
• “Your adaptability in adjusting communication styles to different team members is key to our project’s success. This skill is crucial for maintaining effective collaboration across diverse teams.”
• “The leadership you displayed in coordinating the team project was instrumental in its success. Your ability to align everyone’s efforts towards a common goal is a valuable skill.”
• “Your presentation skills have significantly improved, effectively engaging and informing the team. Continued focus on this area can make your communication even more impactful.”
• “Promoting inclusivity in your communication has positively influenced our team’s dynamics. This approach ensures that everyone feels valued and heard.”
• “Your negotiation skills during the last project were key to reaching a consensus. Developing these skills further can enhance your effectiveness in future discussions.”
• “The feedback culture you’re fostering is creating a more dynamic and responsive team environment. Encouraging continuous feedback can lead to ongoing improvements and innovation.”

Best Way To Offer Peer Feedback: Using Feedback Software!

If you are offering feedback to peers or conducting peer review, you need a performance management tool that lets you digitize, streamline, and structure those processes effectively.

To help you do just that let us show you just how you can use the best performance management software for Microsoft Teams , Teamflect, to deliver feedback to peers!

While this particular example approaches peer review in the form of direct feedback, Teamflect can also help implement peer reviews inside performance appraisals for a complete peer evaluation.

Step 1: Head over to Teamflect’s Feedback Module

While Teamflect users can exchange feedback without leaving Microsoft Teams chat with the help of customizable feedback templates, the feedback module itself serves as a hub for all the feedback given and received.

Once inside the feedback module, all you have to do is click the “New Feedback” button to start giving structured and effective feedback to your peers!

Step 2: Select a feedback template

Teamflect has an extensive library of customizable feedback templates. You can either directly pick a template that best fits the topic on which you would like to deliver feedback to your peer or create a custom feedback template specifically for peer evaluations.

Once you’ve chosen your template, you can start giving feedback right then and there!

Optional: 360-Degree Feedback

Why stop with peer review? Include all stakeholders around the performance cycle into the feedback process with one of the most intuitive 360-degree feedback systems out there.

Request feedback about yourself or about someone else from everyone involved in their performance, including managers, direct reports, peers, and external parties.

Optional: Summarize feedback with AI

If you have more feedback on your hands then you can go through, summarize that feedback with the help of Teamflect’s AI assistant!

What Are The Benefits of Implementing Peer Review Systems?

Peer reviews have plenty of benefits to the individuals delivering the peer review, the ones receiving the peer evaluation, as well as the organization itself. So here are the 5 benefits of implementing peer feedback programs organization-wide.

1. Enhanced Learning and Understanding

Peer feedback promotes a deeper engagement with the material or project at hand. When individuals know they will be receiving and providing feedback, they have a brand new incentive to engage more thoroughly with the content.

2. Cultivation of Open Communication and Continuous Improvement

Establishing a norm where feedback is regularly exchanged fosters an environment of open communication.

People become more accustomed to giving and receiving constructive criticism, reducing defensiveness, and fostering a culture where continuous improvement is the norm.

3. Multiple Perspectives Enhance Quality

Peer feedback introduces multiple viewpoints, which can significantly enhance the quality of work. Different perspectives can uncover blind spots, introduce new ideas, and challenge existing ones, leading to more refined and well-rounded outcomes.

4. Encouragement of Personal and Professional Development

Feedback from peers can play a crucial role in personal and professional growth. It can highlight areas of strength and identify opportunities for development, guiding individuals toward their full potential.

Related Posts:

Written by Emre Ok

Emre is a content writer at Teamflect who aims to share fun and unique insight into the world of performance management.

15 Performance Review Competencies to Track in 2024

10 Best Employee Promotion Interview Questions & Answers!

Center for Excellence in Teaching

Home > Resources > Peer feedback form for group presentations

Peer feedback form for group presentations

A sample form for use by students when they are observing other students’ class presentations, focusing on constructive suggestions for improvement.

Download this file

Download this file [61.44 KB]

Back to Resources Page

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

How to Present to an Audience That Knows More Than You

• Deborah Grayson Riegel

Lean into being a facilitator — not an expert.

What happens when you have to give a presentation to an audience that might have some professionals who have more expertise on the topic than you do? While it can be intimidating, it can also be an opportunity to leverage their deep and diverse expertise in service of the group’s learning. And it’s an opportunity to exercise some intellectual humility, which includes having respect for other viewpoints, not being intellectually overconfident, separating your ego from your intellect, and being willing to revise your own viewpoint — especially in the face of new information. This article offers several tips for how you might approach a roomful of experts, including how to invite them into the discussion without allowing them to completely take over, as well as how to pivot on the proposed topic when necessary.

I was five years into my executive coaching practice when I was invited to lead a workshop on “Coaching Skills for Human Resource Leaders” at a global conference. As the room filled up with participants, I identified a few colleagues who had already been coaching professionally for more than a decade. I felt self-doubt start to kick in: Why were they even here? What did they come to learn? Why do they want to hear from me?

• Deborah Grayson Riegel is a professional speaker and facilitator, as well as a communication and presentation skills coach. She teaches leadership communication at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business and has taught for Wharton Business School, Columbia Business School’s Women in Leadership Program, and Peking University’s International MBA Program. She is the author of Overcoming Overthinking: 36 Ways to Tame Anxiety for Work, School, and Life and the best-selling Go To Help: 31 Strategies to Offer, Ask for, and Accept Help .

Partner Center

• Case Report
• Open access
• Published: 11 May 2024

Metaplastic breast cancer with a unique presentation and complete response to chemotherapy: a case report

• Fouad Nahhat   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8562-2954 1 ,
• Modar Doyya 1 ,
• Kareem Zabad 1 &
• Hazem Ksiri 2  

BMC Women's Health volume  24 , Article number:  285 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Metaplastic breast carcinomas are a rare variant group of breast carcinomas. They are usually high-grade and triple-negative tumors. They often present with large primary tumor sizes. However, the involvement of axillary lymph nodes is infrequent at the time of diagnosis. Metaplastic breast carcinomas are associated with a worse prognosis and a poorer response to chemotherapy in comparison with other non-metaplastic triple-negative breast cancers. Up until this point, there are no specific treatment recommendations for metaplastic breast carcinomas beyond those intended for invasive breast cancer in general.

Case presentation

A 40-year-old woman complained of a palpable mass in her left axilla. On ultrasonography, the mass was solid, spindle-shaped, hypoechoic with regular borders, and exhibited decreased vascularity. At first, the mass appeared to be of a muscular origin. There was not any clinical nor ultrasonic evidence of a primary breast tumor. On magnetic resonance imaging, the axillary mass was a well-defined with regular borders, measuring 24 × 35 mm. Needle biopsy showed a spindle cell tumor with mild to moderate atypia. The subsequent surgical resection revealed a spindle cell neoplasm within a lymph node, favoring a metastatic origin of the tumor. The tumor cells lacked expression of estrogen, progesterone, and HER2 receptors. PET-CT scan indicated pathological uptake in the left breast. Accordingly, the patient was diagnosed with metaplastic breast cancer that had metastasized to the axillary lymph node. She commenced a combined chemotherapy regimen of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide. After six treatment cycles, she underwent left modified radical mastectomy with axillary lymph node dissection. Pathological examination of the specimens revealed a total burn-out tumor in the breast due to excellent treatment response. There were no residual tumor cells. All dissected lymph nodes were free of tumor. At the one-year follow-up, the patient showed no signs of tumor recurrence.

This report sheds light on a distinctive presentation of metaplastic breast carcinoma, emphasizing the need for vigilance in diagnosing this rare and aggressive breast cancer variant. In addition, the patient’s remarkable response to chemotherapy highlights potential treatment avenues for metaplastic breast cancer.

Peer Review reports

Metaplastic breast carcinoma (MpBC) makes up an estimated 0.2–5% of all invasive breast cancers. It represents a heterogeneous group of tumors in which neoplastic cells display differentiation towards squamous epithelium as well as mesenchymal components, such as spindle, chondroid, osseous, or rhabdoid cells [ 1 ].

The WHO classification of metaplastic breast cancer subtypes includes mixed metaplastic carcinoma, low-grade adenosquamous carcinoma, fibromatosis-like, squamous cell carcinoma, spindle cell carcinoma, myoepithelial carcinoma, and metaplastic carcinoma with mesenchymal differentiation (chondroid, osseous) [ 1 ].

MpBCs are often aggressive in nature, typically presenting as high-grade tumors with a triple-negative phenotype (negative for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2) [ 2 ].

Upon presentation, most MpBC patients tend to exhibit large primary tumor sizes, often exceeding 5 cm. Nevertheless, the involvement of axillary lymph nodes is infrequent at the time of diagnosis compared to other types of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) [ 3 ].

Considering that MpBC possesses a worse prognosis than other non-metaplastic TNBCs, carries twice the risk of recurrence, and has a shorter disease-free and overall survival (71% 5-year overall survival for MpBC compared to 88% for IDC) [ 4 ], it is worth noting that The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines do not offer specific treatment recommendations for MpBC beyond those intended for invasive breast carcinoma in general [ 5 ].

Over the past years, conventional therapies including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation have been used to treat MpBC. However, the inadequacy of these treatment methods, as reflected by poor survival rates, has necessitated the need for novel therapeutic options such as targeted and immunotherapies, which are still undergoing experimental trials and evaluation [ 6 ].

The objective of this study was to report a case of metaplastic breast cancer with a unique presentation and complete response to chemotherapy.

A 40-year-old woman presented to the clinic complaining of a palpable mass in her left axilla, which had been present for two months. Otherwise, she had no other complaints. Her medical history was unremarkable.

Upon physical examination, the left axillary mass was fixed and measured approximately 30 mm in size, displaying no visible signs on the skin such as redness, ulceration, or swelling. Additionally, there was nipple induration noted in both breasts in the absence of any palpable masses.

Ultrasonography revealed numerous benign cysts in both the left and right breasts. In addition, it detected two fibroadenomas in the left breast: one measuring 13–20 mm and the other, smaller at 12 mm but notably hypoechoic. The left axillary mass was solid, spindle-shaped, hypoechoic with regular borders, and exhibited decreased vascularity (Fig.  1 ). It measured approximately 31 mm. It was adjacent to the axillary artery and contiguous with the tendon of one of the rotator cuff muscles. Thus far, the mass appeared to be of a muscular origin. Moreover, ultrasonography identified three enlarged lymph nodes that were hypoechoic and measuring 7–8 mm.

Ultrasonography of the axillary mass

Mammography did not reveal any additional findings beyond those obtained by ultrasound.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the left axilla demonstrated a well-defined mass with regular borders, measuring 24 × 35 mm. It was directly adjacent to the axillary nerve that they were practically indistinguishable (Fig.  2 ). On T1-weighted images, the lesion exhibited low signal intensity, while on T2-weighted images, it demonstrated heterogeneously high signal intensity. Following contrast administration, the mass showed heterogeneously marked enhancement.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the axillary mass

In accordance with MRI findings, the differential diagnosis primarily included nerve tumors such as schwannoma and possibly a metastatic lymph node.

A needle biopsy of the axillary mass showed a spindle cell tumor with mild to moderate atypia. An excisional biopsy was recommended for comprehensive evaluation.

The subsequent mass resection pathology revealed a malignant high-grade spindle cell neoplasm within a lymph node, favoring a metastatic origin of the tumor. Immunostaining of the sample was positive for CK (Cytokeratin), Vimentin (focally), and S100 markers and negative for TLE (Transducin-like enhancer of split), CD34, CK5/6, and p63 markers. Furthermore, the tumor cells lacked expression of estrogen, progesterone, and HER2 receptors (triple negative). The Ki-67 index was low (< 10%).

PET-CT scan indicated pathological uptake of FDG in the upper inner quadrant of the left breast (SUV = 3) (Fig.  3 ). There was no pathological metabolic activity observed in other parts of the body.

PET-CT scan showing pathological uptake of FDG in the left breast

Accordingly, the diagnosis was triple-negative metaplastic breast cancer (of a spindle cell carcinoma subtype) that had metastasized to the axillary lymph node.

The patient subsequently commenced a combined chemotherapy regimen of doxorubicin (Adriamycin) and cyclophosphamide (AC).

After completing six treatment cycles, there was a mild decrease in nipple induration and the patient underwent left modified radical mastectomy with axillary lymph node dissection as the accurate primary tumor location could not be identified because no biopsy was taken from the primary tumor and no clip was placed in its site, as this technique is not available in Syria anyway [ 7 , 8 ].

Pathological examination of the surgical specimens revealed a total burn-out tumor in the breast due to excellent treatment response. There were no residual tumor cells. All 19 dissected lymph nodes were reactive and free of tumor.

At the one-year follow-up, the patient showed no signs of tumor recurrence.

Discussion and conclusions

Metaplastic breast carcinoma (MpBC) is a rare subtype of invasive breast cancer characterized by the presence of both epithelial and mesenchymal elements and typically presents as an aggressive triple-negative tumor [ 1 , 2 ].

MpBC usually manifests as a palpable breast mass [ 9 ]. However, it often spares axillary lymph nodes. In an analysis of 892 MpBC cases, only 174 (21.9%) had axillary node involvement at presentation [ 2 ]. Even in studies with smaller samples, the percentage of patients with positive axillary lymph nodes at diagnosis did not exceed 38–40% [ 10 , 11 ].

In contrast, our patient presented uniquely with a relatively big axillary mass, which was later identified as a metastatic lymph node in the absence of any clinical evidence of the primary breast tumor.

Ultrasonography of MpBCs usually shows irregular tumor shadow, micro-lobulated margins, complex echogenicity, parallel orientation, and posterior acoustic enhancement [ 9 ]. On the other hand, the most common feature of MpBCs on MRI is the high intensity of signal on T2-weighted images [ 12 ]. In addition, these tumors usually have irregular margins and display heterogeneous internal enhancement on MRI [ 9 ].

In our case, ultrasonography and mammography of the breasts were only remarkable for multiple bilateral cysts and two benign lesions in the left breast, which were considered fibroadenomas at that time. They did not reveal any suspicious findings, which made the breast origin of the axillary mass less likely at first.

However, MpBCs tend to display more benign features, such as round or oval shapes with well-defined borders, in comparison with ductal carcinomas [ 13 ]. The circumscribed margins of the mass on mammography might reflect the spindle-cell component of these tumors [ 14 ].

Relative to other non-metaplastic TNBCs, MpBCs have a worse prognosis and poorer response to chemotherapy. While TNBCs typically exhibit a pathological complete response (pCR) rate of 33.6% to neoadjuvant chemotherapy [ 15 ], the response rates for MpBCs are generally lower. Results from four studies on neoadjuvant chemotherapy for MpBC indicated pCR rates of 2% in one study involving 44 patients [ 16 ], 17% in another study with 29 patients [ 17 ], 11% in a study with 18 patients [ 18 ], and 16% in the last one involving six patients [ 19 ].

Despite the unique presentation, our patient achieved a pCR to the combined chemotherapy regimen (AC), highlighting its potential role in unusual cases of MpBC.

In the upcoming era, chemotherapy alone might not constitute the definitive curative approach for MpBC. However, it could be used in combination with targeted and immunotherapies, which are still undergoing experimental trials and evaluation [ 6 ].

Novel therapeutic options for MpBC are emerging based on the specific molecular characteristics of the disease. TP53 mutations, which are very common in MpBC, and mutations in PI3K have been identified as promising targets for therapy [ 20 , 21 , 22 ].

TP53 mutations are also associated with elevated VEGF-A levels, suggesting potential sensitivity to anti-VEGF agents such as bevacizumab [ 23 , 24 ]. Notably, mTOR inhibitors such as temsirolimus and everolimus have shown secondary effects on angiogenesis, providing the base for investigating combinations with bevacizumab in clinical trials [ 25 , 26 ]. Furthermore, the combination of temsirolimus with bevacizumab and various chemotherapy agents, including platinums, taxanes, and anthracyclines, has been studied [ 27 ].

Additionally, MpBC is characterized by the overexpression of PD-L1 and high tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL), which set the basis for treating MpBC with immunotherapeutic agents [ 22 , 28 ].

In summary, this report sheds light on a distinctive presentation of metaplastic breast carcinoma (MpBC), emphasizing the need for vigilance in diagnosing this rare and aggressive breast cancer variant. In addition, the patient’s remarkable response to chemotherapy highlights potential treatment avenues for MpBC.

One limitation of our study was the absence of suspicious findings on breast imaging, which precluded the opportunity to perform a biopsy for confirmation. Consequently, the diagnosis relied on the correlation between PET-CT scan findings and lymph node pathology.

Another limitation to acknowledge is that our study was conducted on a single patient. While this case provided valuable insights, the findings may not be fully generalizable to a broader population and larger studies are required.

Data availability

All data are included in this article.

Abbreviations

Metaplastic Breast Carcinoma

World Health Organization

Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2

Triple-negative Breast Cancer

Overall Survival

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network

Adriamycin (Doxorubicin) & Cyclophosphamide

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Cytokeratin

Transducin-like enhancer of split

Positron Emission Tomography

F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose

Pathological Complete Response

Tumor Protein 53 gene

Phosphoinositide 3-kinases

Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A

Mammalian Target of Rapamycin

Programmed Death-ligand 1

Tumor-infiltrating Lymphocytes

Reis-Filho JS, et al. Metaplastic carcinoma. The WHO classification of tumours breast tumours. 5th ed. Lyon: IARC; 2019.

Google Scholar  

Pezzi CM, et al. Characteristics and treatment of metaplastic breast cancer: analysis of 892 cases from the National Cancer Data Base. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:166–73.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Yang X, Tang T, Zhou T. Prognosis and clinicopathological characteristics of metaplastic breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Medicine. 2022;101(49):e32226. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000032226 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Nelson RA, Guye ML, Luu T, Lai LL. Survival outcomes of metaplastic breast cancer patients: results from a US population-based analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(1):24–31. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3890-4 .

NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in. Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®)—Breast Cancer. https://www.nccn.org . 2021 (version 1. 2021).

Tray N, Taff J, Adams S. Therapeutic landscape of metaplastic breast cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 2019;79:101888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2019.08.004 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Nahhat F, Doyya M, Zabad K, Laban TA, Najjar H, Saifo M, Badin F. Breast cancer quality of care in Syria: screening, diagnosis, and staging. BMC Cancer. 2023;23(1):1234. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-11740-2 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Nahhat F, Badin FB, Saifo M. How does the war affect breast cancer quality of care? The Syrian experience. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41(16suppl):e18724–18724. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2023.41.16_suppl.e18724 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Choi BB, Shu KS. Metaplastic carcinoma of the breast: multimodality imaging and histopathologic assessment. Acta Radiol. 2012;53:5–11.

Gibson GR, Qian D, Ku JK, Lai LL. Metaplastic breast Cancer: clinical features and outcomes. Am Surg. 2005;71(9):725–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/000313480507100906 .

Park JM, Han WK, Moon WK, et al. Metaplastic carcinoma of the breast: mammographic and sonographic findings. J Clin Ultrasound. 2000;28:179–86.

Velasco M, Santamaría G, Ganau S, Farrús B, Zanón G, Romagosa C, Fernández PL. MRI of metaplastic carcinoma of the breast. AJR. Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(4):1274–8. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.184.4.01841274 .

Yang WT, Hennessy B, Broglio K, et al. Imaging difference in metaplastic and invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:1288–93.

Petterson SK, Tworek JA, Roubidoux MA, et al. Metaplastic carcinoma of the breast: mammographic appearance with pathologic correlation. Am J Roentgenol. 1997;169:709–12.

Cortazar P, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 2014;384:164–72.

Wong W, Brogi E, Reis-Filho JS, et al. Poor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in metaplastic breast carcinoma. npj Breast Cancer. 2021;7:96. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41523-021-00302-z .

Han M, et al. Metaplastic breast carcinoma: a clinical-pathologic study of 97 cases with subset analysis of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Mod Pathol. 2019;32:807–16.

Al-Hilli Z, et al. Metaplastic breast cancer has a poor response to neoadjuvant systemic therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;176:709–16.

Cimino-Mathews A, et al. A clinicopathologic analysis of 45 patients with metaplastic breast carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol. 2016;145:365–72.

Ng CKY, Piscuoglio S, Geyer FC, et al. The landscape of somatic genetic alterations in metaplastic breast carcinomas. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(14):3859–70.

Piscuoglio S, Ng CKY, Geyer FC, et al. Genomic and transcriptomic heterogeneity in metaplastic carcinomas of the breast. npj Breast Cancer. 2017;3:48.

Tray N, Taff J, Singh B, et al. Metaplastic breast cancers: genomic profiling, mutational burden and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. Breast. 2018;44:29–32.

Wheler JJ, Janku F, Naing A, et al. TP53 alterations correlate with response to VEGF/VEGFR inhibitors: implications for targeted therapeutics. Mol Cancer Ther. 2016;15(10):2475–85.

Schwaederle M, Lazar V, Validire P, et al. VEGF-A expression correlates with TP53 mutations in non-small cell lung cancer: implications for antiangiogenesis therapy. Cancer Res. 2015;75(7):1187–90.

Tzanninis IG, Kotteas EA, Ntanasis-Stathopoulos I, Kontogianni P, Fotopoulos G. Management and outcomes in metaplastic breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2016;16(6):437–43.

Moroney J, Fu S, Moulder S, et al. Phase I study of the antiangiogenic antibody bevacizumab and the mTOR/hypoxia-inducible factor inhibitor temsirolimus combined with liposomal doxorubicin: tolerance and biological activity. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(20):5796–805.

Basho RK, Yam C, Gilcrease M et al. Comparative effectiveness of an mTOR-Based systemic therapy regimen in advanced, metaplastic and nonmetaplastic triple-negative breast cancer. Oncologist. 2018.

Joneja U, Vranic S, Swensen J, et al. Comprehensive profiling of metaplastic breast carcinomas reveals frequent overexpression of programmed death-ligand 1. J Clin Pathol. 2017;70(3):255–9.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

There was no funding source.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Medicine, Damascus University, Damascus, Syria

Fouad Nahhat, Modar Doyya & Kareem Zabad

Department of Oncology, Albairouni University Hospital, Damascus, Syria

Hazem Ksiri

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

FN reviewed the literature and wrote the introduction and discussion sections. MD wrote the abstract and designed the figures with their captions. KZ reviewed the literature and wrote the case presentation section. HK participated in the patient’s care and supervised the manuscript preparation, scientifically and academically. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fouad Nahhat .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication.

A written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of the details of their medical case and any accompanying images.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Nahhat, F., Doyya, M., Zabad, K. et al. Metaplastic breast cancer with a unique presentation and complete response to chemotherapy: a case report. BMC Women's Health 24 , 285 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-024-03134-8

Download citation

Received : 05 October 2023

Accepted : 07 May 2024

Published : 11 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-024-03134-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Metaplastic breast Cancer
• Spindle cell carcinoma
• Triple-negative breast Cancer
• Axillary Lymph Node
• Chemotherapy
• Doxorubicin
• Cyclophosphamide

BMC Women's Health

ISSN: 1472-6874

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Open access
• Published: 17 August 2023

Data visualisation in scoping reviews and evidence maps on health topics: a cross-sectional analysis

• Emily South   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2187-4762 1 &
• Mark Rodgers 1  

Systematic Reviews volume  12 , Article number:  142 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

3614 Accesses

13 Altmetric

Metrics details

Scoping reviews and evidence maps are forms of evidence synthesis that aim to map the available literature on a topic and are well-suited to visual presentation of results. A range of data visualisation methods and interactive data visualisation tools exist that may make scoping reviews more useful to knowledge users. The aim of this study was to explore the use of data visualisation in a sample of recent scoping reviews and evidence maps on health topics, with a particular focus on interactive data visualisation.

Ovid MEDLINE ALL was searched for recent scoping reviews and evidence maps (June 2020-May 2021), and a sample of 300 papers that met basic selection criteria was taken. Data were extracted on the aim of each review and the use of data visualisation, including types of data visualisation used, variables presented and the use of interactivity. Descriptive data analysis was undertaken of the 238 reviews that aimed to map evidence.

Of the 238 scoping reviews or evidence maps in our analysis, around one-third (37.8%) included some form of data visualisation. Thirty-five different types of data visualisation were used across this sample, although most data visualisations identified were simple bar charts (standard, stacked or multi-set), pie charts or cross-tabulations (60.8%). Most data visualisations presented a single variable (64.4%) or two variables (26.1%). Almost a third of the reviews that used data visualisation did not use any colour (28.9%). Only two reviews presented interactive data visualisation, and few reported the software used to create visualisations.

Conclusions

Data visualisation is currently underused by scoping review authors. In particular, there is potential for much greater use of more innovative forms of data visualisation and interactive data visualisation. Where more innovative data visualisation is used, scoping reviews have made use of a wide range of different methods. Increased use of these more engaging visualisations may make scoping reviews more useful for a range of stakeholders.

Peer Review reports

Scoping reviews are “a type of evidence synthesis that aims to systematically identify and map the breadth of evidence available on a particular topic, field, concept, or issue” ([ 1 ], p. 950). While they include some of the same steps as a systematic review, such as systematic searches and the use of predetermined eligibility criteria, scoping reviews often address broader research questions and do not typically involve the quality appraisal of studies or synthesis of data [ 2 ]. Reasons for conducting a scoping review include the following: to map types of evidence available, to explore research design and conduct, to clarify concepts or definitions and to map characteristics or factors related to a concept [ 3 ]. Scoping reviews can also be undertaken to inform a future systematic review (e.g. to assure authors there will be adequate studies) or to identify knowledge gaps [ 3 ]. Other evidence synthesis approaches with similar aims have been described as evidence maps, mapping reviews or systematic maps [ 4 ]. While this terminology is used inconsistently, evidence maps can be used to identify evidence gaps and present them in a user-friendly (and often visual) way [ 5 ].

Scoping reviews are often targeted to an audience of healthcare professionals or policy-makers [ 6 ], suggesting that it is important to present results in a user-friendly and informative way. Until recently, there was little guidance on how to present the findings of scoping reviews. In recent literature, there has been some discussion of the importance of clearly presenting data for the intended audience of a scoping review, with creative and innovative use of visual methods if appropriate [ 7 , 8 , 9 ]. Lockwood et al. suggest that innovative visual presentation should be considered over dense sections of text or long tables in many cases [ 8 ]. Khalil et al. suggest that inspiration could be drawn from the field of data visualisation [ 7 ]. JBI guidance on scoping reviews recommends that reviewers carefully consider the best format for presenting data at the protocol development stage and provides a number of examples of possible methods [ 10 ].

Interactive resources are another option for presentation in scoping reviews [ 9 ]. Researchers without the relevant programming skills can now use several online platforms (such as Tableau [ 11 ] and Flourish [ 12 ]) to create interactive data visualisations. The benefits of using interactive visualisation in research include the ability to easily present more than two variables [ 13 ] and increased engagement of users [ 14 ]. Unlike static graphs, interactive visualisations can allow users to view hierarchical data at different levels, exploring both the “big picture” and looking in more detail ([ 15 ], p. 291). Interactive visualizations are often targeted at practitioners and decision-makers [ 13 ], and there is some evidence from qualitative research that they are valued by policy-makers [ 16 , 17 , 18 ].

Given their focus on mapping evidence, we believe that scoping reviews are particularly well-suited to visually presenting data and the use of interactive data visualisation tools. However, it is unknown how many recent scoping reviews visually map data or which types of data visualisation are used. The aim of this study was to explore the use of data visualisation methods in a large sample of recent scoping reviews and evidence maps on health topics. In particular, we were interested in the extent to which these forms of synthesis use any form of interactive data visualisation.

This study was a cross-sectional analysis of studies labelled as scoping reviews or evidence maps (or synonyms of these terms) in the title or abstract.

The search strategy was developed with help from an information specialist. Ovid MEDLINE® ALL was searched in June 2021 for studies added to the database in the previous 12 months. The search was limited to English language studies only.

The search strategy was as follows:

Ovid MEDLINE(R) ALL

(scoping review or evidence map or systematic map or mapping review or scoping study or scoping project or scoping exercise or literature mapping or evidence mapping or systematic mapping or literature scoping or evidence gap map).ab,ti.

limit 1 to english language

(202006* or 202007* or 202008* or 202009* or 202010* or 202011* or 202012* or 202101* or 202102* or 202103* or 202104* or 202105*).dt.

The search returned 3686 records. Records were de-duplicated in EndNote 20 software, leaving 3627 unique records.

A sample of these reviews was taken by screening the search results against basic selection criteria (Table 1 ). These criteria were piloted and refined after discussion between the two researchers. A single researcher (E.S.) screened the records in EPPI-Reviewer Web software using the machine-learning priority screening function. Where a second opinion was needed, decisions were checked by a second researcher (M.R.).

Our initial plan for sampling, informed by pilot searching, was to screen and data extract records in batches of 50 included reviews at a time. We planned to stop screening when a batch of 50 reviews had been extracted that included no new types of data visualisation or after screening time had reached 2 days. However, once data extraction was underway, we found the sample to be richer in terms of data visualisation than anticipated. After the inclusion of 300 reviews, we took the decision to end screening in order to ensure the study was manageable.

Data extraction

A data extraction form was developed in EPPI-Reviewer Web, piloted on 50 reviews and refined. Data were extracted by one researcher (E. S. or M. R.), with a second researcher (M. R. or E. S.) providing a second opinion when needed. The data items extracted were as follows: type of review (term used by authors), aim of review (mapping evidence vs. answering specific question vs. borderline), number of visualisations (if any), types of data visualisation used, variables/domains presented by each visualisation type, interactivity, use of colour and any software requirements.

When categorising review aims, we considered “mapping evidence” to incorporate all of the six purposes for conducting a scoping review proposed by Munn et al. [ 3 ]. Reviews were categorised as “answering a specific question” if they aimed to synthesise study findings to answer a particular question, for example on effectiveness of an intervention. We were inclusive with our definition of “mapping evidence” and included reviews with mixed aims in this category. However, some reviews were difficult to categorise (for example where aims were unclear or the stated aims did not match the actual focus of the paper) and were considered to be “borderline”. It became clear that a proportion of identified records that described themselves as “scoping” or “mapping” reviews were in fact pseudo-systematic reviews that failed to undertake key systematic review processes. Such reviews attempted to integrate the findings of included studies rather than map the evidence, and so reviews categorised as “answering a specific question” were excluded from the main analysis. Data visualisation methods for meta-analyses have been explored previously [ 19 ]. Figure  1 shows the flow of records from search results to final analysis sample.

Flow diagram of the sampling process

Data visualisation was defined as any graph or diagram that presented results data, including tables with a visual mapping element, such as cross-tabulations and heat maps. However, tables which displayed data at a study level (e.g. tables summarising key characteristics of each included study) were not included, even if they used symbols, shading or colour. Flow diagrams showing the study selection process were also excluded. Data visualisations in appendices or supplementary information were included, as well as any in publicly available dissemination products (e.g. visualisations hosted online) if mentioned in papers.

The typology used to categorise data visualisation methods was based on an existing online catalogue [ 20 ]. Specific types of data visualisation were categorised in five broad categories: graphs, diagrams, tables, maps/geographical and other. If a data visualisation appeared in our sample that did not feature in the original catalogue, we checked a second online catalogue [ 21 ] for an appropriate term, followed by wider Internet searches. These additional visualisation methods were added to the appropriate section of the typology. The final typology can be found in Additional file 1 .

We conducted descriptive data analysis in Microsoft Excel 2019 and present frequencies and percentages. Where appropriate, data are presented using graphs or other data visualisations created using Flourish. We also link to interactive versions of some of these visualisations.

Almost all of the 300 reviews in the total sample were labelled by review authors as “scoping reviews” ( n  = 293, 97.7%). There were also four “mapping reviews”, one “scoping study”, one “evidence mapping” and one that was described as a “scoping review and evidence map”. Included reviews were all published in 2020 or 2021, with the exception of one review published in 2018. Just over one-third of these reviews ( n  = 105, 35.0%) included some form of data visualisation. However, we excluded 62 reviews that did not focus on mapping evidence from the following analysis (see “ Methods ” section). Of the 238 remaining reviews (that either clearly aimed to map evidence or were judged to be “borderline”), 90 reviews (37.8%) included at least one data visualisation. The references for these reviews can be found in Additional file 2 .

Number of visualisations

Thirty-six (40.0%) of these 90 reviews included just one example of data visualisation (Fig.  2 ). Less than a third ( n  = 28, 31.1%) included three or more visualisations. The greatest number of data visualisations in one review was 17 (all bar or pie charts). In total, 222 individual data visualisations were identified across the sample of 238 reviews.

Number of data visualisations per review

Categories of data visualisation

Graphs were the most frequently used category of data visualisation in the sample. Over half of the reviews with data visualisation included at least one graph ( n  = 59, 65.6%). The least frequently used category was maps, with 15.6% ( n  = 14) of these reviews including a map.

Of the total number of 222 individual data visualisations, 102 were graphs (45.9%), 34 were tables (15.3%), 23 were diagrams (10.4%), 15 were maps (6.8%) and 48 were classified as “other” in the typology (21.6%).

Types of data visualisation

All of the types of data visualisation identified in our sample are reported in Table 2 . In total, 35 different types were used across the sample of reviews.

The most frequently used data visualisation type was a bar chart. Of 222 total data visualisations, 78 (35.1%) were a variation on a bar chart (either standard bar chart, stacked bar chart or multi-set bar chart). There were also 33 pie charts (14.9% of data visualisations) and 24 cross-tabulations (10.8% of data visualisations). In total, these five types of data visualisation accounted for 60.8% ( n  = 135) of all data visualisations. Figure  3 shows the frequency of each data visualisation category and type; an interactive online version of this treemap is also available ( https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/9396133/ ). Figure  4 shows how users can further explore the data using the interactive treemap.

Data visualisation categories and types. An interactive version of this treemap is available online: https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/9396133/ . Through the interactive version, users can further explore the data (see Fig.  4 ). The unit of this treemap is the individual data visualisation, so multiple data visualisations within the same scoping review are represented in this map. Created with flourish.studio ( https://flourish.studio )

Screenshots showing how users of the interactive treemap can explore the data further. Users can explore each level of the hierarchical treemap ( A Visualisation category >  B Visualisation subcategory >  C Variables presented in visualisation >  D Individual references reporting this category/subcategory/variable permutation). Created with flourish.studio ( https://flourish.studio )

Data presented

Around two-thirds of data visualisations in the sample presented a single variable ( n  = 143, 64.4%). The most frequently presented single variables were themes ( n  = 22, 9.9% of data visualisations), population ( n  = 21, 9.5%), country or region ( n  = 21, 9.5%) and year ( n  = 20, 9.0%). There were 58 visualisations (26.1%) that presented two different variables. The remaining 21 data visualisations (9.5%) presented three or more variables. Figure  5 shows the variables presented by each different type of data visualisation (an interactive version of this figure is available online).

Variables presented by each data visualisation type. Darker cells indicate a larger number of reviews. An interactive version of this heat map is available online: https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/10632665/ . Users can hover over each cell to see the number of data visualisations for that combination of data visualisation type and variable. The unit of this heat map is the individual data visualisation, so multiple data visualisations within a single scoping review are represented in this map. Created with flourish.studio ( https://flourish.studio )

Most reviews presented at least one data visualisation in colour ( n  = 64, 71.1%). However, almost a third ( n  = 26, 28.9%) used only black and white or greyscale.

Interactivity

Only two of the reviews included data visualisations with any level of interactivity. One scoping review on music and serious mental illness [ 22 ] linked to an interactive bubble chart hosted online on Tableau. Functionality included the ability to filter the studies displayed by various attributes.

The other review was an example of evidence mapping from the environmental health field [ 23 ]. All four of the data visualisations included in the paper were available in an interactive format hosted either by the review management software or on Tableau. The interactive versions linked to the relevant references so users could directly explore the evidence base. This was the only review that provided this feature.

Software requirements

Nine reviews clearly reported the software used to create data visualisations. Three reviews used Tableau (one of them also used review management software as discussed above) [ 22 , 23 , 24 ]. Two reviews generated maps using ArcGIS [ 25 ] or ArcMap [ 26 ]. One review used Leximancer for a lexical analysis [ 27 ]. One review undertook a bibliometric analysis using VOSviewer [ 28 ], and another explored citation patterns using CitNetExplorer [ 29 ]. Other reviews used Excel [ 30 ] or R [ 26 ].

To our knowledge, this is the first systematic and in-depth exploration of the use of data visualisation techniques in scoping reviews. Our findings suggest that the majority of scoping reviews do not use any data visualisation at all, and, in particular, more innovative examples of data visualisation are rare. Around 60% of data visualisations in our sample were simple bar charts, pie charts or cross-tabulations. There appears to be very limited use of interactive online visualisation, despite the potential this has for communicating results to a range of stakeholders. While it is not always appropriate to use data visualisation (or a simple bar chart may be the most user-friendly way of presenting the data), these findings suggest that data visualisation is being underused in scoping reviews. In a large minority of reviews, visualisations were not published in colour, potentially limiting how user-friendly and attractive papers are to decision-makers and other stakeholders. Also, very few reviews clearly reported the software used to create data visualisations. However, 35 different types of data visualisation were used across the sample, highlighting the wide range of methods that are potentially available to scoping review authors.

Our results build on the limited research that has previously been undertaken in this area. Two previous publications also found limited use of graphs in scoping reviews. Results were “mapped graphically” in 29% of scoping reviews in any field in one 2014 publication [ 31 ] and 17% of healthcare scoping reviews in a 2016 article [ 6 ]. Our results suggest that the use of data visualisation has increased somewhat since these reviews were conducted. Scoping review methods have also evolved in the last 10 years; formal guidance on scoping review conduct was published in 2014 [ 32 ], and an extension of the PRISMA checklist for scoping reviews was published in 2018 [ 33 ]. It is possible that an overall increase in use of data visualisation reflects increased quality of published scoping reviews. There is also some literature supporting our findings on the wide range of data visualisation methods that are used in evidence synthesis. An investigation of methods to identify, prioritise or display health research gaps (25/139 included studies were scoping reviews; 6/139 were evidence maps) identified 14 different methods used to display gaps or priorities, with half being “more advanced” (e.g. treemaps, radial bar plots) ([ 34 ], p. 107). A review of data visualisation methods used in papers reporting meta-analyses found over 200 different ways of displaying data [ 19 ].

Only two reviews in our sample used interactive data visualisation, and one of these was an example of systematic evidence mapping from the environmental health field rather than a scoping review (in environmental health, systematic evidence mapping explicitly involves producing a searchable database [ 35 ]). A scoping review of papers on the use of interactive data visualisation in population health or health services research found a range of examples but still limited use overall [ 13 ]. For example, the authors noted the currently underdeveloped potential for using interactive visualisation in research on health inequalities. It is possible that the use of interactive data visualisation in academic papers is restricted by academic publishing requirements; for example, it is currently difficult to incorporate an interactive figure into a journal article without linking to an external host or platform. However, we believe that there is a lot of potential to add value to future scoping reviews by using interactive data visualisation software. Few reviews in our sample presented three or more variables in a single visualisation, something which can easily be achieved using interactive data visualisation tools. We have previously used EPPI-Mapper [ 36 ] to present results of a scoping review of systematic reviews on behaviour change in disadvantaged groups, with links to the maps provided in the paper [ 37 ]. These interactive maps allowed policy-makers to explore the evidence on different behaviours and disadvantaged groups and access full publications of the included studies directly from the map.

We acknowledge there are barriers to use for some of the data visualisation software available. EPPI-Mapper and some of the software used by reviews in our sample incur a cost. Some software requires a certain level of knowledge and skill in its use. However numerous online free data visualisation tools and resources exist. We have used Flourish to present data for this review, a basic version of which is currently freely available and easy to use. Previous health research has been found to have used a range of different interactive data visualisation software, much of which does not required advanced knowledge or skills to use [ 13 ].

There are likely to be other barriers to the use of data visualisation in scoping reviews. Journal guidelines and policies may present barriers for using innovative data visualisation. For example, some journals charge a fee for publication of figures in colour. As previously mentioned, there are limited options for incorporating interactive data visualisation into journal articles. Authors may also be unaware of the data visualisation methods and tools that are available. Producing data visualisations can be time-consuming, particularly if authors lack experience and skills in this. It is possible that many authors prioritise speed of publication over spending time producing innovative data visualisations, particularly in a context where there is pressure to achieve publications.

Limitations

A limitation of this study was that we did not assess how appropriate the use of data visualisation was in our sample as this would have been highly subjective. Simple descriptive or tabular presentation of results may be the most appropriate approach for some scoping review objectives [ 7 , 8 , 10 ], and the scoping review literature cautions against “over-using” different visual presentation methods [ 7 , 8 ]. It cannot be assumed that all of the reviews that did not include data visualisation should have done so. Likewise, we do not know how many reviews used methods of data visualisation that were not well suited to their data.

We initially relied on authors’ own use of the term “scoping review” (or equivalent) to sample reviews but identified a relatively large number of papers labelled as scoping reviews that did not meet the basic definition, despite the availability of guidance and reporting guidelines [ 10 , 33 ]. It has previously been noted that scoping reviews may be undertaken inappropriately because they are seen as “easier” to conduct than a systematic review ([ 3 ], p.6), and that reviews are often labelled as “scoping reviews” while not appearing to follow any established framework or guidance [ 2 ]. We therefore took the decision to remove these reviews from our main analysis. However, decisions on how to classify review aims were subjective, and we did include some reviews that were of borderline relevance.

A further limitation is that this was a sample of published reviews, rather than a comprehensive systematic scoping review as have previously been undertaken [ 6 , 31 ]. The number of scoping reviews that are published has increased rapidly, and this would now be difficult to undertake. As this was a sample, not all relevant scoping reviews or evidence maps that would have met our criteria were included. We used machine learning to screen our search results for pragmatic reasons (to reduce screening time), but we do not see any reason that our sample would not be broadly reflective of the wider literature.

Data visualisation, and in particular more innovative examples of it, is currently underused in published scoping reviews on health topics. The examples that we have found highlight the wide range of methods that scoping review authors could draw upon to present their data in an engaging way. In particular, we believe that interactive data visualisation has significant potential for mapping the available literature on a topic. Appropriate use of data visualisation may increase the usefulness, and thus uptake, of scoping reviews as a way of identifying existing evidence or research gaps by decision-makers, researchers and commissioners of research. We recommend that scoping review authors explore the extensive free resources and online tools available for data visualisation. However, we also think that it would be useful for publishers to explore allowing easier integration of interactive tools into academic publishing, given the fact that papers are now predominantly accessed online. Future research may be helpful to explore which methods are particularly useful to scoping review users.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Organisation formerly known as Joanna Briggs Institute

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Munn Z, Pollock D, Khalil H, Alexander L, McLnerney P, Godfrey CM, Peters M, Tricco AC. What are scoping reviews? Providing a formal definition of scoping reviews as a type of evidence synthesis. JBI Evid Synth. 2022;20:950–952.

Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Colquhoun H, Garritty CM, Hempel S, Horsley T, Langlois EV, Lillie E, O’Brien KK, Tunçalp Ӧ, et al. Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application. Syst Rev. 2021;10:263.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:143.

Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, Booth A. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Info Libr J. 2019;36:202–22.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Miake-Lye IM, Hempel S, Shanman R, Shekelle PG. What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products. Syst Rev. 2016;5:28.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien K, Colquhoun H, Kastner M, Levac D, Ng C, Sharpe JP, Wilson K, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:15.

Khalil H, Peters MDJ, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Alexander L, McInerney P, Godfrey CM, Munn Z. Conducting high quality scoping reviews-challenges and solutions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;130:156–60.

Lockwood C, dos Santos KB, Pap R. Practical guidance for knowledge synthesis: scoping review methods. Asian Nurs Res. 2019;13:287–94.

Article   Google Scholar  

Pollock D, Peters MDJ, Khalil H, McInerney P, Alexander L, Tricco AC, Evans C, de Moraes ÉB, Godfrey CM, Pieper D, et al. Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2022;10:11124.

Google Scholar  

Peters MDJ GC, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil, H. Chapter 11: Scoping reviews (2020 version). In: Aromataris E MZ, editor. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2020. Available from https://synthesismanual.jbi.global . Accessed 1 Feb 2023.

Tableau Public. https://www.tableau.com/en-gb/products/public . Accessed 24 January 2023.

flourish.studio. https://flourish.studio/ . Accessed 24 January 2023.

Chishtie J, Bielska IA, Barrera A, Marchand J-S, Imran M, Tirmizi SFA, Turcotte LA, Munce S, Shepherd J, Senthinathan A, et al. Interactive visualization applications in population health and health services research: systematic scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24: e27534.

Isett KR, Hicks DM. Providing public servants what they need: revealing the “unseen” through data visualization. Public Adm Rev. 2018;78:479–85.

Carroll LN, Au AP, Detwiler LT, Fu T-c, Painter IS, Abernethy NF. Visualization and analytics tools for infectious disease epidemiology: a systematic review. J Biomed Inform. 2014;51:287–298.

Lundkvist A, El-Khatib Z, Kalra N, Pantoja T, Leach-Kemon K, Gapp C, Kuchenmüller T. Policy-makers’ views on translating burden of disease estimates in health policies: bridging the gap through data visualization. Arch Public Health. 2021;79:17.

Zakkar M, Sedig K. Interactive visualization of public health indicators to support policymaking: an exploratory study. Online J Public Health Inform. 2017;9:e190–e190.

Park S, Bekemeier B, Flaxman AD. Understanding data use and preference of data visualization for public health professionals: a qualitative study. Public Health Nurs. 2021;38:531–41.

Kossmeier M, Tran US, Voracek M. Charting the landscape of graphical displays for meta-analysis and systematic reviews: a comprehensive review, taxonomy, and feature analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20:26.

Ribecca, S. The Data Visualisation Catalogue. https://datavizcatalogue.com/index.html . Accessed 23 November 2021.

Ferdio. Data Viz Project. https://datavizproject.com/ . Accessed 23 November 2021.

Golden TL, Springs S, Kimmel HJ, Gupta S, Tiedemann A, Sandu CC, Magsamen S. The use of music in the treatment and management of serious mental illness: a global scoping review of the literature. Front Psychol. 2021;12: 649840.

Keshava C, Davis JA, Stanek J, Thayer KA, Galizia A, Keshava N, Gift J, Vulimiri SV, Woodall G, Gigot C, et al. Application of systematic evidence mapping to assess the impact of new research when updating health reference values: a case example using acrolein. Environ Int. 2020;143: 105956.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Jayakumar P, Lin E, Galea V, Mathew AJ, Panda N, Vetter I, Haynes AB. Digital phenotyping and patient-generated health data for outcome measurement in surgical care: a scoping review. J Pers Med. 2020;10:282.

Qu LG, Perera M, Lawrentschuk N, Umbas R, Klotz L. Scoping review: hotspots for COVID-19 urological research: what is being published and from where? World J Urol. 2021;39:3151–60.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Rossa-Roccor V, Acheson ES, Andrade-Rivas F, Coombe M, Ogura S, Super L, Hong A. Scoping review and bibliometric analysis of the term “planetary health” in the peer-reviewed literature. Front Public Health. 2020;8:343.

Hewitt L, Dahlen HG, Hartz DL, Dadich A. Leadership and management in midwifery-led continuity of care models: a thematic and lexical analysis of a scoping review. Midwifery. 2021;98: 102986.

Xia H, Tan S, Huang S, Gan P, Zhong C, Lu M, Peng Y, Zhou X, Tang X. Scoping review and bibliometric analysis of the most influential publications in achalasia research from 1995 to 2020. Biomed Res Int. 2021;2021:8836395.

Vigliotti V, Taggart T, Walker M, Kusmastuti S, Ransome Y. Religion, faith, and spirituality influences on HIV prevention activities: a scoping review. PLoS ONE. 2020;15: e0234720.

van Heemskerken P, Broekhuizen H, Gajewski J, Brugha R, Bijlmakers L. Barriers to surgery performed by non-physician clinicians in sub-Saharan Africa-a scoping review. Hum Resour Health. 2020;18:51.

Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5:371–85.

Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, McInerney P, Godfrey CM, Khalil H. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18:2119–26.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Moher D, Peters MDJ, Horsley T, Weeks L, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73.

Nyanchoka L, Tudur-Smith C, Thu VN, Iversen V, Tricco AC, Porcher R. A scoping review describes methods used to identify, prioritize and display gaps in health research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;109:99–110.

Wolffe TAM, Whaley P, Halsall C, Rooney AA, Walker VR. Systematic evidence maps as a novel tool to support evidence-based decision-making in chemicals policy and risk management. Environ Int. 2019;130:104871.

Digital Solution Foundry and EPPI-Centre. EPPI-Mapper, Version 2.0.1. EPPI-Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London. 2020. https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=3790 .

South E, Rodgers M, Wright K, Whitehead M, Sowden A. Reducing lifestyle risk behaviours in disadvantaged groups in high-income countries: a scoping review of systematic reviews. Prev Med. 2022;154: 106916.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Melissa Harden, Senior Information Specialist, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, for advice on developing the search strategy.

This work received no external funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK

Emily South & Mark Rodgers

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Both authors conceptualised and designed the study and contributed to screening, data extraction and the interpretation of results. ES undertook the literature searches, analysed data, produced the data visualisations and drafted the manuscript. MR contributed to revising the manuscript, and both authors read and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily South .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

Typology of data visualisation methods.

Additional file 2.

References of scoping reviews included in main dataset.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

South, E., Rodgers, M. Data visualisation in scoping reviews and evidence maps on health topics: a cross-sectional analysis. Syst Rev 12 , 142 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02309-y

Download citation

Received : 21 February 2023

Accepted : 07 August 2023

Published : 17 August 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02309-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Scoping review
• Evidence map
• Data visualisation

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• NATURE INDEX
• 01 May 2024

Plagiarism in peer-review reports could be the ‘tip of the iceberg’

• Jackson Ryan 0

Jackson Ryan is a freelance science journalist in Sydney, Australia.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Time pressures and a lack of confidence could be prompting reviewers to plagiarize text in their reports. Credit: Thomas Reimer/Zoonar via Alamy

Mikołaj Piniewski is a researcher to whom PhD students and collaborators turn when they need to revise or refine a manuscript. The hydrologist, at the Warsaw University of Life Sciences, has a keen eye for problems in text — a skill that came in handy last year when he encountered some suspicious writing in peer-review reports of his own paper.

Last May, when Piniewski was reading the peer-review feedback that he and his co-authors had received for a manuscript they’d submitted to an environmental-science journal, alarm bells started ringing in his head. Comments by two of the three reviewers were vague and lacked substance, so Piniewski decided to run a Google search, looking at specific phrases and quotes the reviewers had used.

To his surprise, he found the comments were identical to those that were already available on the Internet, in multiple open-access review reports from publishers such as MDPI and PLOS. “I was speechless,” says Piniewski. The revelation caused him to go back to another manuscript that he had submitted a few months earlier, and dig out the peer-review reports he received for that. He found more plagiarized text. After e-mailing several collaborators, he assembled a team to dig deeper.

Meet this super-spotter of duplicated images in science papers

The team published the results of its investigation in Scientometrics in February 1 , examining dozens of cases of apparent plagiarism in peer-review reports, identifying the use of identical phrases across reports prepared for 19 journals. The team discovered exact quotes duplicated across 50 publications, saying that the findings are just “the tip of the iceberg” when it comes to misconduct in the peer-review system.

Dorothy Bishop, a former neuroscientist at the University of Oxford, UK, who has turned her attention to investigating research misconduct, was “favourably impressed” by the team’s analysis. “I felt the way they approached it was quite useful and might be a guide for other people trying to pin this stuff down,” she says.

Peer review under review

Piniewski and his colleagues conducted three analyses. First, they uploaded five peer-review reports from the two manuscripts that his laboratory had submitted to a rudimentary online plagiarism-detection tool . The reports had 44–100% similarity to previously published online content. Links were provided to the sources in which duplications were found.

The researchers drilled down further. They broke one of the suspicious peer-review reports down to fragments of one to three sentences each and searched for them on Google. In seconds, the search engine returned a number of hits: the exact phrases appeared in 22 open peer-review reports, published between 2021 and 2023.

The final analysis provided the most worrying results. They took a single quote — 43 words long and featuring multiple language errors, including incorrect capitalization — and pasted it into Google. The search revealed that the quote, or variants of it, had been used in 50 peer-review reports.

Predominantly, these reports were from journals published by MDPI, PLOS and Elsevier, and the team found that the amount of duplication increased year-on-year between 2021 and 2023. Whether this is because of an increase in the number of open-access peer-review reports during this time or an indication of a growing problem is unclear — but Piniewski thinks that it could be a little bit of both.

Why would a peer reviewer use plagiarized text in their report? The team says that some might be attempting to save time , whereas others could be motivated by a lack of confidence in their writing ability, for example, if they aren’t fluent in English.

The team notes that there are instances that might not represent misconduct. “A tolerable rephrasing of your own words from a different review? I think that’s fine,” says Piniewski. “But I imagine that most of these cases we found are actually something else.”

The source of the problem

Duplication and manipulation of peer-review reports is not a new phenomenon. “I think it’s now increasingly recognized that the manipulation of the peer-review process, which was recognized around 2010, was probably an indication of paper mills operating at that point,” says Jennifer Byrne, director of biobanking at New South Wales Health in Sydney, Australia, who also studies research integrity in scientific literature.

Paper mills — organizations that churn out fake research papers and sell authorships to turn a profit — have been known to tamper with reviews to push manuscripts through to publication, says Byrne.

The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science

However, when Bishop looked at Piniewski’s case, she could not find any overt evidence of paper-mill activity. Rather, she suspects that journal editors might be involved in cases of peer-review-report duplication and suggests studying the track records of those who’ve allowed inadequate or plagiarized reports to proliferate.

Piniewski’s team is also concerned about the rise of duplications as generative artificial intelligence (AI) becomes easier to access . Although his team didn’t look for signs of AI use, its ability to quickly ingest and rephrase large swathes of text is seen as an emerging issue.

A preprint posted in March 2 showed evidence of researchers using AI chatbots to assist with peer review, identifying specific adjectives that could be hallmarks of AI-written text in peer-review reports .

Bishop isn’t as concerned as Piniewski about AI-generated reports, saying that it’s easy to distinguish between AI-generated text and legitimate reviewer commentary. “The beautiful thing about peer review,” she says, is that it is “one thing you couldn’t do a credible job with AI”.

Preventing plagiarism

Publishers seem to be taking action. Bethany Baker, a media-relations manager at PLOS, who is based in Cambridge, UK, told Nature Index that the PLOS Publication Ethics team “is investigating the concerns raised in the Scientometrics article about potential plagiarism in peer reviews”.

How big is science’s fake-paper problem?

An Elsevier representative told Nature Index that the publisher “can confirm that this matter has been brought to our attention and we are conducting an investigation”.

In a statement, the MDPI Research Integrity and Publication Ethics Team said that it has been made aware of potential misconduct by reviewers in its journals and is “actively addressing and investigating this issue”. It did not confirm whether this was related to the Scientometrics article.

One proposed solution to the problem is ensuring that all submitted reviews are checked using plagiarism-detection software. In 2022, exploratory work by Adam Day, a data scientist at Sage Publications, based in Thousand Oaks, California, identified duplicated text in peer-review reports that might be suggestive of paper-mill activity. Day offered a similar solution of using anti-plagiarism software , such as Turnitin.

Piniewski expects the problem to get worse in the coming years, but he hasn’t received any unusual peer-review reports since those that originally sparked his research. Still, he says that he’s now even more vigilant. “If something unusual occurs, I will spot it.”

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01312-0

Piniewski, M., Jarić, I., Koutsoyiannis, D. & Kundzewicz, Z. W. Scientometrics https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04960-1 (2024).

Article   Google Scholar  

Liang, W. et al. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.07183 (2024).

Download references

Related Articles

• Peer review
• Research management

Illuminating ‘the ugly side of science’: fresh incentives for reporting negative results

Career Feature 08 MAY 24

Algorithm ranks peer reviewers by reputation — but critics warn of bias

Nature Index 25 APR 24

Researchers want a ‘nutrition label’ for academic-paper facts

Nature Index 17 APR 24

Structure peer review to make it more robust

World View 16 APR 24

Is ChatGPT corrupting peer review? Telltale words hint at AI use

News 10 APR 24

Mount Etna’s spectacular smoke rings and more — April’s best science images

News 03 MAY 24

How reliable is this research? Tool flags papers discussed on PubPeer

News 29 APR 24

Faculty Positions at the Center for Machine Learning Research (CMLR), Peking University

CMLR's goal is to advance machine learning-related research across a wide range of disciplines.

Beijing, China

Center for Machine Learning Research (CMLR), Peking University

Faculty Positions at SUSTech Department of Biomedical Engineering

We seek outstanding applicants for full-time tenure-track/tenured faculty positions. Positions are available for both junior and senior-level.

Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

Southern University of Science and Technology (Biomedical Engineering)

Southeast University Future Technology Institute Recruitment Notice

Professor openings in mechanical engineering, control science and engineering, and integrating emerging interdisciplinary majors

Nanjing, Jiangsu (CN)

Southeast University

Staff Scientist

A Staff Scientist position is available in the laboratory of Drs. Elliot and Glassberg to study translational aspects of lung injury, repair and fibro

Maywood, Illinois

Loyola University Chicago - Department of Medicine

W3-Professorship (with tenure) in Inorganic Chemistry

The Institute of Inorganic Chemistry in the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences at the University of Bonn invites applications for a W3-Pro...

53113, Zentrum (DE)

Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies