examples of peer review essay feedback

50 Great Peer Review Examples: Sample Phrases + Scenarios

by Emre Ok March 16, 2024, 10:48 am updated August 8, 2024, 12:19 pm 1.8k Views

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!

• Performance Management

70 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.

Peer review is a critical part of personal development, allowing colleagues to learn from each other and excel at their job. Crafting meaningful and impactful feedback for peers is an art. It’s not just about highlighting strengths and weaknesses; it’s about doing so in a way that motivates others. 

In this blog post, we will explore some of the most common phrases you can use to give peer feedback. Whether you’re looking for a comment on a job well done, offer constructive criticism , or provide balanced and fair feedback, these peer review examples will help you communicate your feedback with clarity and empathy.

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 in performance reviews :

• “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.

What is peer review?

A peer review is a collaborative evaluation process where colleagues assess each other’s work. It’s a cornerstone of professional development, enhancing accountability and shared learning. By providing constructive feedback , peers contribute to overall team improvement. Referencing peer review examples can guide effective implementation within your organization.

What should I write in a peer review?

In a peer review, you should focus on providing constructive, balanced feedback. Highlight strengths such as effective communication or leadership, and offer specific suggestions for improvement. The goal is to help peers grow professionally by addressing areas like skill development or performance gaps. Use clear and supportive language to ensure your feedback is actionable. By incorporating peer review examples, you can provide valuable insights to enhance performance.

What are some examples of peer review phrases?

Statements like ‘ Your ability to articulate complex ideas is impressive ‘ or ‘ I recommend focusing on time management to improve project delivery ‘ are examples of peer review phrases. These phrases help peers identify specific strengths and areas for growth. Customizing feedback to fit the context ensures it’s relevant and actionable. Exploring different peer review examples can inspire you to craft impactful feedback that drives growth.

Why is it called peer review?

It’s called peer review because the evaluation is conducted by colleagues or peers who share similar expertise or roles. This ensures that the feedback is relevant and credible, as it comes from individuals who understand the challenges and standards of the work being assessed. Analyzing peer review examples can reveal best practices for implementing this process effectively.

What are the types of peer reviews?

Peer reviews can be formal or informal. Formal reviews are typically structured, documented, and tied to performance evaluation. Informal reviews offer more frequent, real-time feedback. Both types are valuable for development. Exploring peer review examples can help you determine the best approach for your team or organization.

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

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

Recent Blogs

What are the Best Interview Questions to Ask Candidates?

100+ Best Exit Interview Questions You Should Ask (+ Exit Interview Tips)

15+ Types of Recruitment Methods to Hire the Top Talents

• Performance Reviews
• 360 Degree Reviews
• Performance Reviews in Slack
• 1:1 Meetings
• Business Reviews
• Engagement Survey
• Anonymous Messaging
• Engagement Insights
• Org Chart Tool
• 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

Peer Review Examples (300 Key Positive, Negative Phrases)

By Status.net Editorial Team on February 4, 2024 — 18 minutes to read

Peer review is a process that helps you evaluate your work and that of others. It can be a valuable tool in ensuring the quality and credibility of any project or piece of research. Engaging in peer review lets you take a fresh look at something you may have become familiar with. You’ll provide constructive criticism to your peers and receive the same in return, allowing everyone to learn and grow.

Finding the right words to provide meaningful feedback can be challenging. This article provides positive and negative phrases to help you conduct more effective peer reviews.

Crafting Positive Feedback

Praising professionalism.

• Your punctuality is exceptional.
• You always manage to stay focused under pressure.
• I appreciate your respect for deadlines.
• Your attention to detail is outstanding.
• You exhibit great organizational skills.
• Your dedication to the task at hand is commendable.
• I love your professionalism in handling all situations.
• Your ability to maintain a positive attitude is inspiring.
• Your commitment to the project shows in the results.
• I value your ability to think critically and come up with solutions.

Acknowledging Skills

• Your technical expertise has greatly contributed to our team’s success.
• Your creative problem-solving skills are impressive.
• You have an exceptional way of explaining complex ideas.
• I admire your ability to adapt to change quickly.
• Your presentation skills are top-notch.
• You have a unique flair for motivating others.
• Your negotiation skills have led to wonderful outcomes.
• Your skillful project management ensured smooth progress.
• Your research skills have produced invaluable findings.
• Your knack for diplomacy has fostered great relationships.

Encouraging Teamwork

• Your ability to collaborate effectively is evident.
• You consistently go above and beyond to help your teammates.
• I appreciate your eagerness to support others.
• You always bring out the best in your team members.
• You have a gift for uniting people in pursuit of a goal.
• Your clear communication makes collaboration a breeze.
• You excel in creating a nurturing atmosphere for the team.
• Your leadership qualities are incredibly valuable to our team.
• I admire your respectful attitude towards team members.
• You have a knack for creating a supportive and inclusive environment.

Highlighting Achievements

• Your sales performance this quarter has been phenomenal.
• Your cost-saving initiatives have positively impacted the budget.
• Your customer satisfaction ratings have reached new heights.
• Your successful marketing campaign has driven impressive results.
• You’ve shown a strong improvement in meeting your performance goals.
• Your efforts have led to a significant increase in our online presence.
• The success of the event can be traced back to your careful planning.
• Your project was executed with precision and efficiency.
• Your innovative product ideas have provided a competitive edge.
• You’ve made great strides in strengthening our company culture.

Formulating Constructive Criticism

Addressing areas for improvement.

When providing constructive criticism, try to be specific in your comments and avoid generalizing. Here are 30 example phrases:

• You might consider revising this sentence for clarity.
• This section could benefit from more detailed explanations.
• It appears there may be a discrepancy in your data.
• This paragraph might need more support from the literature.
• I suggest reorganizing this section to improve coherence.
• The introduction can be strengthened by adding context.
• There may be some inconsistencies that need to be resolved.
• This hypothesis needs clearer justification.
• The methodology could benefit from additional details.
• The conclusion may need a stronger synthesis of the findings.
• You might want to consider adding examples to illustrate your point.
• Some of the terminology used here could be clarified.
• It would be helpful to see more information on your sources.
• A summary might help tie this section together.
• You may want to consider rephrasing this question.
• An elaboration on your methods might help the reader understand your approach.
• This image could be clearer if it were larger or had labels.
• Try breaking down this complex idea into smaller parts.
• You may want to revisit your tone to ensure consistency.
• The transitions between topics could be smoother.
• Consider adding citations to support your argument.
• The tables and figures could benefit from clearer explanations.
• It might be helpful to revisit your formatting for better readability.
• This discussion would benefit from additional perspectives.
• You may want to address any logical gaps in your argument.
• The literature review might benefit from a more critical analysis.
• You might want to expand on this point to strengthen your case.
• The presentation of your results could be more organized.
• It would be helpful if you elaborated on this connection in your analysis.
• A more in-depth conclusion may better tie your ideas together.

Offering Specific Recommendations

• You could revise this sentence to say…
• To make this section more detailed, consider discussing…
• To address the data discrepancy, double-check the data at this point.
• You could add citations from these articles to strengthen your point.
• To improve coherence, you could move this paragraph to…
• To add context, consider mentioning…
• To resolve these inconsistencies, check…
• To justify your hypothesis, provide evidence from…
• To add detail to your methodology, describe…
• To synthesize your findings in the conclusion, mention…
• To illustrate your point, consider giving an example of…
• To clarify terminology, you could define…
• To provide more information on sources, list…
• To create a summary, touch upon these key points.
• To rephrase this question, try asking…
• To expand upon your methods, discuss…
• To make this image clearer, increase its size or add labels for…
• To break down this complex idea, consider explaining each part like…
• To maintain a consistent tone, avoid using…
• To smooth transitions between topics, use phrases such as…
• To support your argument, cite sources like…
• To explain tables and figures, add captions with…
• To improve readability, use formatting elements like headings, bullet points, etc.
• To include additional perspectives in your discussion, mention…
• To address logical gaps, provide reasoning for…
• To create a more critical analysis in your literature review, critique…
• To expand on this point, add details about…
• To present your results more organized, use subheadings, tables, or graphs.
• To elaborate on connections in your analysis, show how x relates to y by…
• To provide a more in-depth conclusion, tie together the major findings by…

Highlighting Positive Aspects

When offering constructive criticism, maintaining a friendly and positive tone is important. Encourage improvement by highlighting the positive aspects of the work. For example:

• Great job on this section!
• Your writing is clear and easy to follow.
• I appreciate your attention to detail.
• Your conclusions are well supported by your research.
• Your argument is compelling and engaging.
• I found your analysis to be insightful.
• The organization of your paper is well thought out.
• Your use of citations effectively strengthens your claims.
• Your methodology is well explained and thorough.
• I’m impressed with the depth of your literature review.
• Your examples are relevant and informative.
• You’ve made excellent connections throughout your analysis.
• Your grasp of the subject matter is impressive.
• The clarity of your images and figures is commendable.
• Your transitions between topics are smooth and well-executed.
• You’ve effectively communicated complex ideas.
• Your writing style is engaging and appropriate for your target audience.
• Your presentation of results is easy to understand.
• Your tone is consistent and professional.
• Your overall argument is persuasive.
• Your use of formatting helps guide the reader.
• Your tables, graphs, and illustrations enhance your argument.
• Your interpretation of the data is insightful and well-reasoned.
• Your discussion is balanced and well-rounded.
• The connections you make throughout your paper are thought-provoking.
• Your approach to the topic is fresh and innovative.
• You’ve done a fantastic job synthesizing information from various sources.
• Your attention to the needs of the reader is commendable.
• The care you’ve taken in addressing counterarguments is impressive.
• Your conclusions are well-drawn and thought-provoking.

Balancing Feedback

Combining positive and negative remarks.

When providing peer review feedback, it’s important to balance positive and negative comments: this approach allows the reviewer to maintain a friendly tone and helps the recipient feel reassured.

Examples of Positive Remarks:

• Well-organized
• Clear and concise
• Excellent use of examples
• Thorough research
• Articulate argument
• Engaging writing style
• Thoughtful analysis
• Strong grasp of the topic
• Relevant citations
• Logical structure
• Smooth transitions
• Compelling conclusion
• Original ideas
• Solid supporting evidence
• Succinct summary

Examples of Negative Remarks:

• Unclear thesis
• Lacks focus
• Insufficient evidence
• Overgeneralization
• Inconsistent argument
• Redundant phrasing
• Jargon-filled language
• Poor formatting
• Grammatical errors
• Unconvincing argument
• Confusing organization
• Needs more examples
• Weak citations
• Unsupported claims
• Ambiguous phrasing

Ensuring Objectivity

Avoid using emotionally charged language or personal opinions. Instead, base your feedback on facts and evidence.

For example, instead of saying, “I don’t like your choice of examples,” you could say, “Including more diverse examples would strengthen your argument.”

Personalizing Feedback

Tailor your feedback to the individual and their work, avoiding generic or blanket statements. Acknowledge the writer’s strengths and demonstrate an understanding of their perspective. Providing personalized, specific, and constructive comments will enable the recipient to grow and improve their work.

For instance, you might say, “Your writing style is engaging, but consider adding more examples to support your points,” or “I appreciate your thorough research, but be mindful of avoiding overgeneralizations.”

Phrases for Positive Feedback

• Great job on the presentation, your research was comprehensive.
• I appreciate your attention to detail in this project.
• You showed excellent teamwork and communication skills.
• Impressive progress on the task, keep it up!
• Your creativity really shined in this project.
• Thank you for your hard work and dedication.
• Your problem-solving skills were crucial to the success of this task.
• I am impressed by your ability to multitask.
• Your time management in finishing this project was stellar.
• Excellent initiative in solving the issue.
• Your work showcases your exceptional analytical skills.
• Your positive attitude is contagious!
• You were successful in making a complex subject easier to grasp.
• Your collaboration skills truly enhanced our team’s effectiveness.
• You handled the pressure and deadlines admirably.
• Your written communication is both thorough and concise.
• Your responsiveness to feedback is commendable.
• Your flexibility in adapting to new challenges is impressive.
• Thank you for your consistently accurate work.
• Your devotion to professional development is inspiring.
• You display strong leadership qualities.
• You demonstrate empathy and understanding in handling conflicts.
• Your active listening skills contribute greatly to our discussions.
• You consistently take ownership of your tasks.
• Your resourcefulness was key in overcoming obstacles.
• You consistently display a can-do attitude.
• Your presentation skills are top-notch!
• You are a valuable asset to our team.
• Your positive energy boosts team morale.
• Your work displays your tremendous growth in this area.
• Your ability to stay organized is commendable.
• You consistently meet or exceed expectations.
• Your commitment to self-improvement is truly inspiring.
• Your persistence in tackling challenges is admirable.
• Your ability to grasp new concepts quickly is impressive.
• Your critical thinking skills are a valuable contribution to our team.
• You demonstrate impressive technical expertise in your work.
• Your contributions make a noticeable difference.
• You effectively balance multiple priorities.
• You consistently take the initiative to improve our processes.
• Your ability to mentor and support others is commendable.
• You are perceptive and insightful in offering solutions to problems.
• You actively engage in discussions and share your opinions constructively.
• Your professionalism is a model for others.
• Your ability to quickly adapt to changes is commendable.
• Your work exemplifies your passion for excellence.
• Your desire to learn and grow is inspirational.
• Your excellent organizational skills are a valuable asset.
• You actively seek opportunities to contribute to the team’s success.
• Your willingness to help others is truly appreciated.
• Your presentation was both informative and engaging.
• You exhibit great patience and perseverance in your work.
• Your ability to navigate complex situations is impressive.
• Your strategic thinking has contributed to our success.
• Your accountability in your work is commendable.
• Your ability to motivate others is admirable.
• Your reliability has contributed significantly to the team’s success.
• Your enthusiasm for your work is contagious.
• Your diplomatic approach to resolving conflict is commendable.
• Your ability to persevere despite setbacks is truly inspiring.
• Your ability to build strong relationships with clients is impressive.
• Your ability to prioritize tasks is invaluable to our team.
• Your work consistently demonstrates your commitment to quality.
• Your ability to break down complex information is excellent.
• Your ability to think on your feet is greatly appreciated.
• You consistently go above and beyond your job responsibilities.
• Your attention to detail consistently ensures the accuracy of your work.
• Your commitment to our team’s success is truly inspiring.
• Your ability to maintain composure under stress is commendable.
• Your contributions have made our project a success.
• Your confidence and conviction in your work is motivating.
• Thank you for stepping up and taking the lead on this task.
• Your willingness to learn from mistakes is encouraging.
• Your decision-making skills contribute greatly to the success of our team.
• Your communication skills are essential for our team’s effectiveness.
• Your ability to juggle multiple tasks simultaneously is impressive.
• Your passion for your work is infectious.
• Your courage in addressing challenges head-on is remarkable.
• Your ability to prioritize tasks and manage your own workload is commendable.
• You consistently demonstrate strong problem-solving skills.
• Your work reflects your dedication to continuous improvement.
• Your sense of humor helps lighten the mood during stressful times.
• Your ability to take constructive feedback on board is impressive.
• You always find opportunities to learn and develop your skills.
• Your attention to safety protocols is much appreciated.
• Your respect for deadlines is commendable.
• Your focused approach to work is motivating to others.
• You always search for ways to optimize our processes.
• Your commitment to maintaining a high standard of work is inspirational.
• Your excellent customer service skills are a true asset.
• You demonstrate strong initiative in finding solutions to problems.
• Your adaptability to new situations is an inspiration.
• Your ability to manage change effectively is commendable.
• Your proactive communication is appreciated by the entire team.
• Your drive for continuous improvement is infectious.
• Your input consistently elevates the quality of our discussions.
• Your ability to handle both big picture and detailed tasks is impressive.
• Your integrity and honesty are commendable.
• Your ability to take on new responsibilities is truly inspiring.
• Your strong work ethic is setting a high standard for the entire team.

Phrases for Areas of Improvement

• You might consider revisiting the structure of your argument.
• You could work on clarifying your main point.
• Your presentation would benefit from additional examples.
• Perhaps try exploring alternative perspectives.
• It would be helpful to provide more context for your readers.
• You may want to focus on improving the flow of your writing.
• Consider incorporating additional evidence to support your claims.
• You could benefit from refining your writing style.
• It would be useful to address potential counterarguments.
• You might want to elaborate on your conclusion.
• Perhaps consider revisiting your methodology.
• Consider providing a more in-depth analysis.
• You may want to strengthen your introduction.
• Your paper could benefit from additional proofreading.
• You could work on making your topic more accessible to your readers.
• Consider tightening your focus on key points.
• It might be helpful to add more visual aids to your presentation.
• You could strive for more cohesion between your sections.
• Your abstract would benefit from a more concise summary.
• Perhaps try to engage your audience more actively.
• You may want to improve the organization of your thoughts.
• It would be useful to cite more reputable sources.
• Consider emphasizing the relevance of your topic.
• Your argument could benefit from stronger parallels.
• You may want to add transitional phrases for improved readability.
• It might be helpful to provide more concrete examples.
• You could work on maintaining a consistent tone throughout.
• Consider employing a more dynamic vocabulary.
• Your project would benefit from a clearer roadmap.
• Perhaps explore the limitations of your study.
• It would be helpful to demonstrate the impact of your research.
• You could work on the consistency of your formatting.
• Consider refining your choice of images.
• You may want to improve the pacing of your presentation.
• Make an effort to maintain eye contact with your audience.
• Perhaps adding humor or anecdotes would engage your listeners.
• You could work on modulating your voice for emphasis.
• It would be helpful to practice your timing.
• Consider incorporating more interactive elements.
• You might want to speak more slowly and clearly.
• Your project could benefit from additional feedback from experts.
• You might want to consider the practical implications of your findings.
• It would be useful to provide a more user-friendly interface.
• Consider incorporating a more diverse range of sources.
• You may want to hone your presentation to a specific audience.
• You could work on the visual design of your slides.
• Your writing might benefit from improved grammatical accuracy.
• It would be helpful to reduce jargon for clarity.
• You might consider refining your data visualization.
• Perhaps provide a summary of key points for easier comprehension.
• You may want to develop your skills in a particular area.
• Consider attending workshops or trainings for continued learning.
• Your project could benefit from stronger collaboration.
• It might be helpful to seek guidance from mentors or experts.
• You could work on managing your time more effectively.
• It would be useful to set goals and priorities for improvement.
• You might want to identify areas where you can grow professionally.
• Consider setting aside time for reflection and self-assessment.
• Perhaps develop strategies for overcoming challenges.
• You could work on increasing your confidence in public speaking.
• Consider collaborating with others for fresh insights.
• You may want to practice active listening during discussions.
• Be open to feedback and constructive criticism.
• It might be helpful to develop empathy for team members’ perspectives.
• You could work on being more adaptable to change.
• It would be useful to improve your problem-solving abilities.
• Perhaps explore opportunities for networking and engagement.
• You may want to set personal benchmarks for success.
• You might benefit from being more proactive in seeking opportunities.
• Consider refining your negotiation and persuasion skills.
• It would be helpful to enhance your interpersonal communication.
• You could work on being more organized and detail-oriented.
• You may want to focus on strengthening leadership qualities.
• Consider improving your ability to work effectively under pressure.
• Encourage open dialogue among colleagues to promote a positive work environment.
• It might be useful to develop a growth mindset.
• Be open to trying new approaches and techniques.
• Consider building stronger relationships with colleagues and peers.
• It would be helpful to manage expectations more effectively.
• You might want to delegate tasks more efficiently.
• You could work on your ability to prioritize workload effectively.
• It would be useful to review and update processes and procedures regularly.
• Consider creating a more inclusive working environment.
• You might want to seek opportunities to mentor and support others.
• Recognize and celebrate the accomplishments of your team members.
• Consider developing a more strategic approach to decision-making.
• You may want to establish clear goals and objectives for your team.
• It would be helpful to provide regular and timely feedback.
• Consider enhancing your delegation and time-management skills.
• Be open to learning from your team’s diverse skill sets.
• You could work on cultivating a collaborative culture.
• It would be useful to engage in continuous professional development.
• Consider seeking regular feedback from colleagues and peers.
• You may want to nurture your own personal resilience.
• Reflect on areas of improvement and develop an action plan.
• It might be helpful to share your progress with a mentor or accountability partner.
• Encourage your team to support one another’s growth and development.
• Consider celebrating and acknowledging small successes.
• You could work on cultivating effective communication habits.
• Be willing to take calculated risks and learn from any setbacks.

Frequently Asked Questions

How can i phrase constructive feedback in peer evaluations.

To give constructive feedback in peer evaluations, try focusing on specific actions or behaviors that can be improved. Use phrases like “I noticed that…” or “You might consider…” to gently introduce your observations. For example, “You might consider asking for help when handling multiple tasks to improve time management.”

What are some examples of positive comments in peer reviews?

• “Your presentation was engaging and well-organized, making it easy for the team to understand.”
• “You are a great team player, always willing to help others and contribute to the project’s success.”
• “Your attention to detail in documentation has made it easier for the whole team to access information quickly.”

Can you suggest ways to highlight strengths in peer appraisals?

Highlighting strengths in peer appraisals can be done by mentioning specific examples of how the individual excelled or went above and beyond expectations. You can also point out how their strengths positively impacted the team. For instance:

• “Your effective communication skills ensured that everyone was on the same page during the project.”
• “Your creativity in problem-solving helped resolve a complex issue that benefited the entire team.”

What are helpful phrases to use when noting areas for improvement in a peer review?

When noting areas for improvement in a peer review, try using phrases that encourage growth and development. Some examples include:

• “To enhance your time management skills, you might try prioritizing tasks or setting deadlines.”
• “By seeking feedback more often, you can continue to grow and improve in your role.”
• “Consider collaborating more with team members to benefit from their perspectives and expertise.”

How should I approach writing a peer review for a manager differently?

When writing a peer review for a manager, it’s important to focus on their leadership qualities and how they can better support their team. Some suggestions might include:

• “Encouraging more open communication can help create a more collaborative team environment.”
• “By providing clearer expectations or deadlines, you can help reduce confusion and promote productivity.”
• “Consider offering recognition to team members for their hard work, as this can boost motivation and morale.”

What is a diplomatic way to discuss negative aspects in a peer review?

Discussing negative aspects in a peer review requires tact and empathy. Try focusing on behaviors and actions rather than personal attributes, and use phrases that suggest areas for growth. For example:

• “While your dedication to the project is admirable, it might be beneficial to delegate some tasks to avoid burnout.”
• “Improving communication with colleagues can lead to better alignment within the team.”
• “By asking for feedback, you can identify potential blind spots and continue to grow professionally.”
• Flexibility: 25 Performance Review Phrases Examples
• Job Knowledge Performance Review Phrases (Examples)
• Integrity: 25 Performance Review Phrases Examples
• 60 Smart Examples: Positive Feedback for Manager in a Review
• 30 Employee Feedback Examples (Positive & Negative)
• Initiative: 25 Performance Review Phrases Examples

Practical Peer Review Feedback Examples

As part of a team or organization, giving feedback is an integral part of providing constructive criticism and fostering a culture of growth and development. However, giving and receiving feedback can be daunting, especially when it involves discussing areas of improvement with peers or colleagues. In this blog, we will provide practical tips on how to provide effective peer review feedback, as well as valuable insights into delivering meaningful and constructive conversations using real-life examples.

Advice on Peer Feedback

There are a few common areas people flub when giving feedback to a peer or colleague. Let's go over these first to set some basic, best-practice ground rules.

Be Specific

Being specific when giving feedback is essential because it provides clarity and enables the recipient to understand exactly what aspects of their performance or behavior need improvement or reinforcement. Try to leave little room for ambiguity. Specific feedback should allow the person to focus their effort.

Concise feedback is almost always better. Be clear and don't dilute the point with extraneous information or softening. Concentrate the feedback on the most critical aspects that need attention. Be respectful of their time by only delivering the most succinct and targeted info.

Timely feedback is based on recent events or observations. This keeps the details top of mind for both parties. Delivering constructive feedback promptly ensures that it is still relevant and applicable, gives ample time for course correction, and can prevent any necessary escalation. Delivering positive feedback promptly can create a powerful connection between those actions and the desired outcome. Remember, feedback ages like milk.

Acknowledge Strengths

Peer review feedback, in particular, should be delivered tastefully. Generally, you're not in a position to tell the other party what they must do or who they need to be as an employee; instead, you're in a position of suggesting change based on observation. Acknowledging someones key strengths whilst delivering feedback shows you have a balanced perspective on their work. It helps create a constructive atmosphere with trust and psychological safety, which generally makes individuals more receptive to feedback.

Practice Empathy

Use "I" statements to take ownership of your perspective and to avoid sounding accusatory. Be sure to engage in active listening regarding feedback. Above all, put yourself in their shoes. Consider their perspective and reflect on how the might feel receiving the feedback. This will help you approach the conversation with the proper mindset.

DON'T Make it Personal

It should go without saying, but do not make it personal by attacking the other person or their character. Instead, focus on the work that was done and give specific and concise examples. Events and emotions outside of the professional environment should not make their way into the conversation.

DON'T Make Assumptions

It is important not to make assumptions when giving feedback to your peers. Avoid any assumptions without direct observation. It is better to stick with what you have seen and heard directly in order to give helpful feedback.

DON'T Share with Others

It is important to keep peer feedback confidential. That means not discussing it with other people unless you've agreed with your peer to do so. Trust is a key fundamental precursor for delivering and receiving feedback. Don't lose trust by sharing feedback outside of the appropriate bounds.

Examples of Peer Feedback

Applicable examples are always a bit tough. Feedback is almost entirely dependent on the person and situation. Nevertheless, here are some examples of feedback that represent the above best practices:

• "Hey Taylor, thanks for all of the great insights in today's meeting. I always appreciate your subject matter expertise and passion... I feel like that excitement gets the best of you at times. Today, I noticed that you cut off Amber and Jess while they were still speaking. I'm worried it can hinder the free flow of collaboration within the team. In the spirit of constant improvement, I decided it was worth a mention."
• "Hi Matt, some quick feedback I had on the report you submitted yesterday. First off, the content was well-researched and thorough. Unfortunately, I also noticed a few grammar and formatting errors (which you'll see I marked throughout). I think taking some extra time to proofread and edit would ensure that your excellent work shines through."
• "Hi Cheryl, I wanted to discuss the recent project you led. I think you demonstrated strong leadership skills and guided the team extremely effectively. I'm happy with the project overall, but it was difficult for me to get timely status updates to pass along to my colleagues. I'm hopeful next time we can create a more consistent process to keep everyone in the loop and reduce any miscommunication."
• "Hey Tom, I appreciate your hard work and dedication to meeting deadlines. However, I've noticed that you sometimes take on too many tasks simultaneously, which can affect the quality of your output. I think it might be helpful for you to delegate some tasks or ask for assistance when you feel overwhelmed, so you can maintain your high standards."
• "Hello Jane, I wanted to talk to you about the presentation you delivered yesterday. Your content was excellent and well-researched, but I noticed that your speaking pace was quite fast, which made it a bit challenging to absorb all the information. I think slowing down a bit and incorporating pauses would allow the audience to fully grasp your key points and engage with the material."

In Conclusion

Giving feedback is crucial in fostering a culture of growth and development in any professional environment. Consistent feedback processes can lead to significant improvements in team performance. By using these practical tips and examples, you can improve your feedback delivery and create an environment of openness and continued learning. Be sure to understand all of the employee feedback tools available at your organization and use them to your benefit.

What’s a Rich Text element?

The rich text element allows you to create and format headings, paragraphs, blockquotes, images, and video all in one place instead of having to add and format them individually. Just double-click and easily create content.

Static and dynamic content editing

A rich text element can be used with static or dynamic content. For static content, just drop it into any page and begin editing. For dynamic content, add a rich text field to any collection and then connect a rich text element to that field in the settings panel. Voila!

How to customize formatting for each rich text

Headings, paragraphs, blockquotes, figures, images, and figure captions can all be styled after a class is added to the rich text element using the "When inside of" nested selector system.

Learn more about leadership and management

Feedback Definition in Communication

What is Demonstrated Competence?

Understanding Implicit Bias: Unveiling Hidden Prejudices

Want to see pearl in action.

The Savvy Scientist

Experiences of a London PhD student and beyond

My Complete Guide to Academic Peer Review: Example Comments & How to Make Paper Revisions

Once you’ve submitted your paper to an academic journal you’re in the nerve-racking position of waiting to hear back about the fate of your work. In this post we’ll cover everything from potential responses you could receive from the editor and example peer review comments through to how to submit revisions.

My first first-author paper was reviewed by five (yes 5!) reviewers and since then I’ve published several others papers, so now I want to share the insights I’ve gained which will hopefully help you out!

This post is part of my series to help with writing and publishing your first academic journal paper. You can find the whole series here: Writing an academic journal paper .

The Peer Review Process

When you submit a paper to a journal, the first thing that will happen is one of the editorial team will do an initial assessment of whether or not the article is of interest. They may decide for a number of reasons that the article isn’t suitable for the journal and may reject the submission before even sending it out to reviewers.

If this happens hopefully they’ll have let you know quickly so that you can move on and make a start targeting a different journal instead.

Handy way to check the status – Sign in to the journal’s submission website and have a look at the status of your journal article online. If you can see that the article is under review then you’ve passed that first hurdle!

When your paper is under peer review, the journal will have set out a framework to help the reviewers assess your work. Generally they’ll be deciding whether the work is to a high enough standard.

Interested in reading about what reviewers are looking for? Check out my post on being a reviewer for the first time. Peer-Reviewing Journal Articles: Should You Do It? Sharing What I Learned From My First Experiences .

Once the reviewers have made their assessments, they’ll return their comments and suggestions to the editor who will then decide how the article should proceed.

How Many People Review Each Paper?

The editor ideally wants a clear decision from the reviewers as to whether the paper should be accepted or rejected. If there is no consensus among the reviewers then the editor may send your paper out to more reviewers to better judge whether or not to accept the paper.

If you’ve got a lot of reviewers on your paper it isn’t necessarily that the reviewers disagreed about accepting your paper.

You can also end up with lots of reviewers in the following circumstance:

• The editor asks a certain academic to review the paper but doesn’t get a response from them
• The editor asks another academic to step in
• The initial reviewer then responds

Next thing you know your work is being scrutinised by extra pairs of eyes!

As mentioned in the intro, my first paper ended up with five reviewers!

Potential Journal Responses

Assuming that the paper passes the editor’s initial evaluation and is sent out for peer-review, here are the potential decisions you may receive:

• Reject the paper. Sadly the editor and reviewers decided against publishing your work. Hopefully they’ll have included feedback which you can incorporate into your submission to another journal. I’ve had some rejections and the reviewer comments were genuinely useful.
• Accept the paper with major revisions . Good news: with some more work your paper could get published. If you make all the changes that the reviewers suggest, and they’re happy with your responses, then it should get accepted. Some people see major revisions as a disappointment but it doesn’t have to be.
• Accept the paper with minor revisions. This is like getting a major revisions response but better! Generally minor revisions can be addressed quickly and often come down to clarifying things for the reviewers: rewording, addressing minor concerns etc and don’t require any more experiments or analysis. You stand a really good chance of getting the paper published if you’ve been given a minor revisions result.
• Accept the paper with no revisions . I’m not sure that this ever really happens, but it is potentially possible if the reviewers are already completely happy with your paper!

Keen to know more about academic publishing? My series on publishing is now available as a free eBook. It includes my experiences being a peer reviewer. Click the image below for access.

Example Peer Review Comments & Addressing Reviewer Feedback

If your paper has been accepted but requires revisions, the editor will forward to you the comments and concerns that the reviewers raised. You’ll have to address these points so that the reviewers are satisfied your work is of a publishable standard.

It is extremely important to take this stage seriously. If you don’t do a thorough job then the reviewers won’t recommend that your paper is accepted for publication!

You’ll have to put together a resubmission with your co-authors and there are two crucial things you must do:

• Make revisions to your manuscript based off reviewer comments
• Reply to the reviewers, telling them the changes you’ve made and potentially changes you’ve not made in instances where you disagree with them. Read on to see some example peer review comments and how I replied!

Before making any changes to your actual paper, I suggest having a thorough read through the reviewer comments.

Once you’ve read through the comments you might be keen to dive straight in and make the changes in your paper. Instead, I actually suggest firstly drafting your reply to the reviewers.

Why start with the reply to reviewers? Well in a way it is actually potentially more important than the changes you’re making in the manuscript.

Imagine when a reviewer receives your response to their comments: you want them to be able to read your reply document and be satisfied that their queries have largely been addressed without even having to open the updated draft of your manuscript. If you do a good job with the replies, the reviewers will be better placed to recommend the paper be accepted!

By starting with your reply to the reviewers you’ll also clarify for yourself what changes actually have to be made to the paper.

So let’s now cover how to reply to the reviewers.

1. Replying to Journal Reviewers

It is so important to make sure you do a solid job addressing your reviewers’ feedback in your reply document. If you leave anything unanswered you’re asking for trouble, which in this case means either a rejection or another round of revisions: though some journals only give you one shot! Therefore make sure you’re thorough, not just with making the changes but demonstrating the changes in your replies.

It’s no good putting in the work to revise your paper but not evidence it in your reply to the reviewers!

There may be points that reviewers raise which don’t appear to necessitate making changes to your manuscript, but this is rarely the case. Even for comments or concerns they raise which are already addressed in the paper, clearly those areas could be clarified or highlighted to ensure that future readers don’t get confused.

How to Reply to Journal Reviewers

Some journals will request a certain format for how you should structure a reply to the reviewers. If so this should be included in the email you receive from the journal’s editor. If there are no certain requirements here is what I do:

• Copy and paste all replies into a document.
• Separate out each point they raise onto a separate line. Often they’ll already be nicely numbered but sometimes they actually still raise separate issues in one block of text. I suggest separating it all out so that each query is addressed separately.
• Form your reply for each point that they raise. I start by just jotting down notes for roughly how I’ll respond. Once I’m happy with the key message I’ll write it up into a scripted reply.
• Finally, go through and format it nicely and include line number references for the changes you’ve made in the manuscript.

By the end you’ll have a document that looks something like:

Reviewer 1 Point 1: [Quote the reviewer’s comment] Response 1: [Address point 1 and say what revisions you’ve made to the paper] Point 2: [Quote the reviewer’s comment] Response 2: [Address point 2 and say what revisions you’ve made to the paper] Then repeat this for all comments by all reviewers!

What To Actually Include In Your Reply To Reviewers

For every single point raised by the reviewers, you should do the following:

• Address their concern: Do you agree or disagree with the reviewer’s comment? Either way, make your position clear and justify any differences of opinion. If the reviewer wants more clarity on an issue, provide it. It is really important that you actually address their concerns in your reply. Don’t just say “Thanks, we’ve changed the text”. Actually include everything they want to know in your reply. Yes this means you’ll be repeating things between your reply and the revisions to the paper but that’s fine.
• Reference changes to your manuscript in your reply. Once you’ve answered the reviewer’s question, you must show that you’re actually using this feedback to revise the manuscript. The best way to do this is to refer to where the changes have been made throughout the text. I personally do this by include line references. Make sure you save this right until the end once you’ve finished making changes!

Example Peer Review Comments & Author Replies

In order to understand how this works in practice I’d suggest reading through a few real-life example peer review comments and replies.

The good news is that published papers often now include peer-review records, including the reviewer comments and authors’ replies. So here are two feedback examples from my own papers:

Example Peer Review: Paper 1

Quantifying 3D Strain in Scaffold Implants for Regenerative Medicine, J. Clark et al. 2020 – Available here

This paper was reviewed by two academics and was given major revisions. The journal gave us only 10 days to get them done, which was a bit stressful!

• Reviewer Comments
• My reply to Reviewer 1
• My reply to Reviewer 2

One round of reviews wasn’t enough for Reviewer 2…

• My reply to Reviewer 2 – ROUND 2

Thankfully it was accepted after the second round of review, and actually ended up being selected for this accolade, whatever most notable means?!

Nice to see our recent paper highlighted as one of the most notable articles, great start to the week! Thanks @Materials_mdpi 😀 #openaccess & available here: https://t.co/AKWLcyUtpC @ICBiomechanics @julianrjones @saman_tavana pic.twitter.com/ciOX2vftVL — Jeff Clark (@savvy_scientist) December 7, 2020

Example Peer Review: Paper 2

Exploratory Full-Field Mechanical Analysis across the Osteochondral Tissue—Biomaterial Interface in an Ovine Model, J. Clark et al. 2020 – Available here

This paper was reviewed by three academics and was given minor revisions.

• My reply to Reviewer 3

I’m pleased to say it was accepted after the first round of revisions 🙂

Things To Be Aware Of When Replying To Peer Review Comments

• Generally, try to make a revision to your paper for every comment. No matter what the reviewer’s comment is, you can probably make a change to the paper which will improve your manuscript. For example, if the reviewer seems confused about something, improve the clarity in your paper. If you disagree with the reviewer, include better justification for your choices in the paper. It is far more favourable to take on board the reviewer’s feedback and act on it with actual changes to your draft.
• Organise your responses. Sometimes journals will request the reply to each reviewer is sent in a separate document. Unless they ask for it this way I stick them all together in one document with subheadings eg “Reviewer 1” etc.
• Make sure you address each and every question. If you dodge anything then the reviewer will have a valid reason to reject your resubmission. You don’t need to agree with them on every point but you do need to justify your position.
• Be courteous. No need to go overboard with compliments but stay polite as reviewers are providing constructive feedback. I like to add in “We thank the reviewer for their suggestion” every so often where it genuinely warrants it. Remember that written language doesn’t always carry tone very well, so rather than risk coming off as abrasive if I don’t agree with the reviewer’s suggestion I’d rather be generous with friendliness throughout the reply.

2. How to Make Revisions To Your Paper

Once you’ve drafted your replies to the reviewers, you’ve actually done a lot of the ground work for making changes to the paper. Remember, you are making changes to the paper based off the reviewer comments so you should regularly be referring back to the comments to ensure you’re not getting sidetracked.

Reviewers could request modifications to any part of your paper. You may need to collect more data, do more analysis, reformat some figures, add in more references or discussion or any number of other revisions! So I can’t really help with everything, even so here is some general advice:

• Use tracked-changes. This is so important. The editor and reviewers need to be able to see every single change you’ve made compared to your first submission. Sometimes the journal will want a clean copy too but always start with tracked-changes enabled then just save a clean copy afterwards.
• Be thorough . Try to not leave any opportunity for the reviewers to not recommend your paper to be published. Any chance you have to satisfy their concerns, take it. For example if the reviewers are concerned about sample size and you have the means to include other experiments, consider doing so. If they want to see more justification or references, be thorough. To be clear again, this doesn’t necessarily mean making changes you don’t believe in. If you don’t want to make a change, you can justify your position to the reviewers. Either way, be thorough.
• Use your reply to the reviewers as a guide. In your draft reply to the reviewers you should have already included a lot of details which can be incorporated into the text. If they raised a concern, you should be able to go and find references which address the concern. This reference should appear both in your reply and in the manuscript. As mentioned above I always suggest starting with the reply, then simply adding these details to your manuscript once you know what needs doing.

Putting Together Your Paper Revision Submission

• Once you’ve drafted your reply to the reviewers and revised manuscript, make sure to give sufficient time for your co-authors to give feedback. Also give yourself time afterwards to make changes based off of their feedback. I ideally give a week for the feedback and another few days to make the changes.
• When you’re satisfied that you’ve addressed the reviewer comments, you can think about submitting it. The journal may ask for another letter to the editor, if not I simply add to the top of the reply to reviewers something like:

“Dear [Editor], We are grateful to the reviewer for their positive and constructive comments that have led to an improved manuscript.  Here, we address their concerns/suggestions and have tracked changes throughout the revised manuscript.”

Once you’re ready to submit:

• Double check that you’ve done everything that the editor requested in their email
• Double check that the file names and formats are as required
• Triple check you’ve addressed the reviewer comments adequately
• Click submit and bask in relief!

You won’t always get the paper accepted, but if you’re thorough and present your revisions clearly then you’ll put yourself in a really good position. Remember to try as hard as possible to satisfy the reviewers’ concerns to minimise any opportunity for them to not accept your revisions!

Best of luck!

I really hope that this post has been useful to you and that the example peer review section has given you some ideas for how to respond. I know how daunting it can be to reply to reviewers, and it is really important to try to do a good job and give yourself the best chances of success. If you’d like to read other posts in my academic publishing series you can find them here:

Blog post series: Writing an academic journal paper

Subscribe below to stay up to date with new posts in the academic publishing series and other PhD content.

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)

Related Posts

How to Plan a Research Visit

13th September 2024 13th September 2024

The Five Most Powerful Lessons I Learned During My PhD

8th August 2024 8th August 2024

Minor Corrections: How To Make Them and Succeed With Your PhD Thesis

2nd June 2024 2nd June 2024

2 Comments on “My Complete Guide to Academic Peer Review: Example Comments & How to Make Paper Revisions”

Excellent article! Thank you for the inspiration!

No worries at all, thanks for your kind comment!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Privacy Overview

• Peer Review System
• Production Service
• OA Publishing Platform
• Law Review System
• Why Scholastica?
• Customer Stories
• eBooks, Guides & More
• Schedule a demo
• Law Reviews
• Innovations In Academia
• New Features

Subscribe to receive posts by email

• Legal Scholarship
• Peer Review/Publishing
• I agree to the data use terms outlined in Scholastica's Privacy Policy Must agree to privacy policy.

How to Write Constructive Peer Review Comments: Tips every journal should give referees

Like the art of tightrope walking, writing helpful peer review comments requires honing the ability to traverse many fine lines.

Referees have to strike a balance between being too critical or too careful, too specific or too vague, too conclusive or too open-ended — and the list goes on. Regardless of the stage of a scholar’s career, learning how to write consistently constructive peer review comments takes time and practice.

Most scholars embark on peer review with little to no formal training. So a bit of guidance from journals before taking on assignments is often welcome and can make a big difference in review quality. In this blog post, we’re rounding up 7 tips journals can give referees to help them conduct solid peer reviews and deliver feedback effectively.

You can incorporate these tips into your journal reviewer guidelines and any training materials you prepare, or feel free to link reviewers straight to this blog post!

Take steps to avoid decision fatigue

Did you know that some sources suggest adults make upwards of 35,000 decisions per day ? Hard to believe, right?!

Whether that stat is indeed the norm, there’s no question that we humans make MANY choices on the regular, from what to wear and what route to take to work to avoid construction to which emails to respond to first and how to go about that really tricky research project in the midst of tackling usual tasks, meetings — and, well, everything else. And that’s all likely before 10 AM!

In his blog post “ How to Peer Review ,” Dr. Matthew Might, Professor in the Department of Medicine and Director of the Hugh Kaul Precision Medicine Institute at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, explained that over time the compounding mental strain of so much deliberation can result in a phenomenon known as decision fatigue . Decision fatigue is a deterioration in decision-making quality, which for busy peer reviewers can lead to writing less than articulate comments at best and missing critical points at worst.

In order to avoid decision fatigue, Might said scholars should try to work on peer reviews early in the day before they become bogged down with other matters. Additionally, he advises referees to work on no more than one review at a time when possible, or within one sitting at least, and to avoid reviewing when they feel tired or hungry. Taking steps to prevent decision fatigue can help scholars produce higher quality comments and, ultimately, write reviews faster because they’ll be working on them at times when they’re likely to be more focused and productive.

Of course, referees won’t always be able to follow every one of the above recommendations all of the time, nor will journal editors know if they have. But, it’s worth it for editors to remind reviewers to take decision fatigue into account before accepting and starting assignments.

Be cognizant of conscious and unconscious biases

Another decision-making factor that can cloud peer reviewers’ judgment that all editors should be hyper-attuned to is conscious and unconscious biases. Journal ethical guidelines are, of course, the first line of defense for preventing explicit biases. Every journal should have conflict of interest policies on when and how to disclose potential competing interests (e.g., financial ties, academic commitments, personal relationships) that could influence reviewers’ (as well as editors’ and authors’) level of objectivity in the publication process. The Committee on Publication Ethics offers many helpful guides for developing conflict of interest / competing interest statements, and medical journals can find a “summary of key elements for peer-reviewed medical journal’s conflict of interest policies” from The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) here .

But what about unconscious biases that could have potentially insidious impacts on peer reviews?

Journals can help curb implicit bias by following double-anonymized peer review processes. Though, as the editors of Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology acknowledged in an announcement about their decision to move to double-anonymized peer review, even when all parties’ identities are concealed “unintentional exposure of author or institution identity is sometimes unavoidable, such as in small, specialized fields or subsequent to early sharing of data at conferences.”

Truly tackling unconscious biases requires getting to their roots, starting with acknowledging that they exist. Journals should remind reviewers to be cognizant of the fact that everyone harbors implicit biases that could impact their decision-making, as IOPScience does here and Cambridge University Press does here and provide tips for spotting and addressing biases. IOP advises reviewers to “focus on facts rather than feelings, slow down your decision making, and consider and reconsider the reasons for your conclusions.” And CUP reminds referees that “rooting your review in evidence from the paper or proposal is crucial in avoiding bias.”

Journals can also offer unconscious bias prevention training or direct referees to available resources such as this recorded Peer Reviewer Unconscious Bias webinar from the American Heart Association.

Null or negative results aren’t a basis for rejection

Speaking of forms of bias that can affect the peer review process, “positive results bias” — or the tendency to want to accept and publish positive results rather than null or negative results — is a common one. In a Royal Society blog post on what makes a good peer review, Head of the Department of Population Health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Dr. Rebecca Sear, spoke to how positive results bias can throw a wrench in peer review. Speaking from the perspective of an author, editor, and reviewer, Sear said, “at worst, this distorts science by keeping valuable research out of the literature entirely. It also creates inefficiencies in the system when publishable research has to be submitted to multiple journals before publication, burdening several reviewers and editors with the costs of evaluating the same research. A further problem is that the anonymity typically given to peer reviewers can result in unprofessional behavior being unleashed on authors.”

Journals can help prevent positive results bias by clearly stating that recommendations regarding manuscript decisions should be made on the basis of the quality of the research question, methodology, and perceived accuracy (rather than positivity) of the findings. Remind reviewers (and editors) that null and negative results can also provide valuable and even novel contributions to the literature.

List the negatives and the positives

When it comes time to write peer review comments, some scholars may intentionally or not lean heavily towards giving criticism rather than praise. Of course, peer reviews need to be rigorous, and that requires a critical eye, but it’s important for reviewers to let authors know what they’re doing right also. Otherwise, the author may lose sight of the working parts of their submission and could end up actually making it worse in revisions.

Journals should remind reviewers that their goal is to help authors identify what they are doing correctly as well as where to improve . Reviews shouldn’t be so negative that the author ends up pulling apart their entire manuscript. Additionally, it’s worth reminding reviewers to keep snarky comments to themselves. As Dr. Might noted in his blog, the presence of sarcasm in peer review may nullify any useful feedback provided in the eyes of the author.

Give concrete examples and advice (within scope!)

No author likes hearing that an area of their paper “needs work” without getting context as to why. It’s essential to remind reviewers to back up their comments and opinions with concrete examples and suggestions for improvement and ensure that any recommendations they’re making are within the scope of the journal requirements and research subject matter in question.

Remind reviewers that if they make suggestions for authors to provide additional references, data points, or experiments, they should be within scope and something the reviewer can confirm they would be able (and willing) to do themselves if in the author’s position.

One of the best ways to help train reviewers on how to give constructive feedback is to provide them with real-world examples. These “ Peer Review Examples “ from F1000 are a great starting point.

Another way editors can help reviewers give more concrete commentary is by advising them to log their reactions and responses to a paper as they read it. This can help reviewers avoid making blanket criticisms about an entire work that are, in fact, only applicable to some sections. It may also encourage reviewers to recognize and point out more positives!

Providing reviewers with detailed feedback forms and manuscript assessment checklists is another surefire way to help them stay on track.

Don’t be afraid to seek support

Journals should also remind prospective reviewers that it’s OK to ask for support when working on peer reviews. For example, an early-career researcher might want to seek a mentor to co-author their first review with them or provide general guidance on how to determine whether an experiment was conducted in the best manner possible (keeping manuscript information confidential, of course).

To help new referees get their footing, journals can assist them in identifying mentorship opportunities where applicable and offer peer reviewer training or links to external resources. For example, Taylor & Francis has an “ Excellence in Peer Review “ course, and Sense About Science has a “ Peer Review Nuts and Bolts “ guide.

For journals dealing with specialized subject matter, it’s also critical to be prepared to bring in expert opinions when needed. Editors should let reviewers know not to hesitate to suggest bringing in an expert if they feel it’s necessary.

Follow the Golden Rule

Finally, perhaps the best piece of advice journals can give reviewers is to follow the Golden Rule. You know it, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

In his “How to peer review” guide, Dr. Matthew Might provided a clear barometer for referees to determine if they’ve prepared a thorough and fair review. “Once you’ve completed your review, ask yourself if you would be satisfied with the quality had you received the same for your own work,” he said. “If the answer is no, revise.”

Related Posts

How Libraries Can Help Journals Cut Corporate Ties: LPForum Presentation Recap

During the 2017 LPForum Scholastica presented ways libraries can facilitate the democratization of academic journals beyond library publishing programs. Here's a recap.

Why every academic journal should track digital publishing analytics

How much do you know about your online journal readership? If you're not yet tracking publishing analytics, it may not be as much as you think. In this blog post, we're rounding up three analytics areas all journal teams should be assessing and why.

4 Reasons editors should independently promote their academic journals and tips to get started

While a reputation for publishing high-quality content will always be the number one way for journals to set themselves apart in the eyes of authors and readers, regular promotion is becoming paramount to building and retaining a following. In this blog post, we break down why and steps to get started.

Steps journals can take to support authors living with disabilities: Interview with Tekla Babyak

In this interview, Independent Musicologist and Disability Activist Tekla Babyak (Ph.D., Musicology, Cornell, 2014) discusses her experience as an academic living with MS and shares steps scholarly journal publishers and editors can take to better support authors with disabilities.

5 Scholarly publishing trends to watch in 2022

Publishing consultant Lettie Conrad and Scholastica's Danielle Padula share the top five scholarly publishing trends they're watching in 2022 and implications for small to mid-sized and independent publishers.

7 Tips if you're thinking about changing journal peer review software

Are you considering changing peer review systems? This blog post overviews seven tips to help you assess your peer review process needs and how to approach a software transition if you decide it's time to make a switch.

"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, Rewards, and Surveys all inside Slack or Teams

Free Forever. 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.

Recognition & Rewards all inside Slack or Teams

Employee Recognition & Rewards all in Slack or Teams

25 Peer Feedback Examples

Dave Cornell (PhD)

Dr. Cornell has worked in education for more than 20 years. His work has involved designing teacher certification for Trinity College in London and in-service training for state governments in the United States. He has trained kindergarten teachers in 8 countries and helped businessmen and women open baby centers and kindergartens in 3 countries.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Chris Drew (PhD)

This article was peer-reviewed and edited by Chris Drew (PhD). The review process on Helpful Professor involves having a PhD level expert fact check, edit, and contribute to articles. Reviewers ensure all content reflects expert academic consensus and is backed up with reference to academic studies. Dr. Drew has published over 20 academic articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education and holds a PhD in Education from ACU.

Peer feedback refers to an activity where colleagues or students receive comments and suggestions from their peers or classmates.

It is believed to be beneficial for helping both the giver and receiver of feedback to garner new insights, widen their thinking, correct errors, learn through teaching, and see how others approach tasks in different ways.

In education, the peer feedback generally does not affect assigned grades, but it does play a valuable role in formative assessment .

Peer Feedback Examples

• “Great job on the presentation! Your visuals were engaging, and you clearly communicated the main points.”
• “I noticed that you’ve been very proactive in taking on new tasks. Keep up the good work!”
• “Your attention to detail in the report was impressive. The data was well-organized and easy to understand.”
• “I think you could benefit from speaking more confidently during meetings. Maybe try rehearsing your points beforehand.”
• “Your teamwork skills are outstanding. You consistently make an effort to include everyone’s ideas and reach a consensus.”
• “During the brainstorming session, you came up with innovative solutions. Your creativity is a valuable asset to the team.”
• “Your time management skills have improved significantly. Keep up the great work in prioritizing and completing tasks on time.”
• “I observed that you sometimes get sidetracked during discussions. Staying focused on the agenda could help you contribute more effectively.”
• Your written communication is clear and concise, which makes it easy for everyone to understand your ideas.
• “When you’re leading a meeting, try to maintain eye contact with your audience. It helps to create a better connection and keeps everyone engaged.”
• You’ve been doing an excellent job in providing constructive criticism to our teammates. Your input is helping everyone improve.”
• “Your patience and willingness to help others with their tasks have made a noticeable difference in our team’s overall productivity.”
• “In the future, consider double-checking your work before submitting it. This will help minimize errors and ensure a higher quality output.”
• “I appreciate how you always encourage others to share their ideas during team discussions. It fosters a collaborative environment.”
• “You consistently stay calm under pressure, which helps our team maintain focus during stressful situations.”
• “Your ability to delegate tasks effectively has significantly improved our team’s efficiency. Keep up the good work!”
• “I noticed that you sometimes interrupt others during conversations. Being more aware of this behavior will help create a more inclusive environment.”
• Your enthusiasm and positive attitude are contagious, making it a pleasure to work with you.
• “You have a talent for explaining complex concepts in simple terms. This skill has been invaluable in helping our team understand new information.”
• “I’ve observed that you’re very responsive to feedback and quick to implement changes. Your adaptability is a real asset to our team.”
• “Your ability to manage multiple projects simultaneously is impressive. Your organizational skills contribute to our team’s success.
• “You have a knack for asking thought-provoking questions that lead to deeper discussions and better solutions.”
• “I appreciate your commitment to professional development . Your willingness to learn new skills and share your knowledge benefits the entire team.”
• “During group projects, you excel at keeping everyone on track and ensuring that deadlines are met. Your leadership skills contribute to our team’s cohesion .”
• “You consistently show empathy and understanding when interacting with colleagues, which fosters a supportive work environment for everyone.”

Peer Feedback Definition

Liu and Carless (2006) define peer feedback as:

“…a communication process through which learners enter into dialogues related to performance and standards” (p. 280).

Peer feedback can be arranged as a one-on-one activity or in small groups. It can be implemented as a role-play, occur in meetings, the classroom or online, or be delivered anonymously to avoid social issues.

It is usually considered a classroom activity for students, but it can also be utilized with teachers and in the workplace.

For example, colleagues can examine one another’s work and offer valuable insights to increase effectiveness and productivity.

5 Important Peer Feedback Strategies

• Focus on behavior, not the person: When providing feedback, concentrate on specific actions or behaviors, rather than making it about the individual. This ensures the feedback is professional and minimizes personal insult.
• Be timely: Feedback occurs best when it happens close to the event. Offer feedback as soon as possible, such as in a debrief at the end of a session. This ensures that it is fresh in both your mind and the recipient’s, making it more relevant and useful.
• Use open-ended questions : Feedback shouldn’t just be one-way communication. By talking back and forth, you can elicit better insights and be more helpful. So, encourage reflection and self-assessment by asking questions that require thoughtful responses, such as “What do you think went well in that presentation?” or “How do you feel you could improve your teamwork?”
• Practice active listening : Give your full attention to the person you are providing feedback to, and ensure you understand their perspective well. You may have misunderstood something, which may undermine the quality of your feedback. Furthermore, active listening helps create an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect.
• Maintain a positive tone: Frame your feedback in a way that is supportive and motivating, rather than negative or accusatory. This encourages your peer to be open to your suggestions and feel more confident in making changes. One strategy I like to use is the complement sandwich, which means you should open and close all feedback sessions with genuine and positive points.

Benefits of Peer Feedback   

1. supports perspective-taking.

When evaluating the work of a peer, we have to put ourselves in the shoes of a teacher or manager. This helps us understand the situation from a new point of view and will help us build perspective-taking skills.

Similarly, when delivering feedback to a peer, we need to consider how this will affect the person’s self-esteem. This is another form of perspective-taking that will help the feedback giver to develop emotional intelligence .

2. Helps us how to take Criticism

Feedback is a part of life. It occurs not only in school settings, but throughout adulthood as well. Employees receive feedback from supervisors, sometimes on a daily and hourly basis, and always in an annual performance evaluation.

Learning how to handle both positive and negative feedback is therefore a valuable skill to acquire. It is better to gain some experience handling criticism in the safety of a classroom than in a formal employment situation.

3. Increased Awareness of Grading Procedures

Because a student’s self-identity can be directly tied to their work, negative feedback can prevent them from understanding the logical basis for the criticism. This is a basic self-defense mechanism .

However, by looking at classwork from the perspective of an evaluator, it helps students understand the rationale behind grading procedures.

Students can develop a sense of objectivity in assessment and see the link between performance and grading criteria.

4. Can be more Effective than Authority Feedback

Both children and adults are sometimes more receptive to feedback from peers than authority figures.

Especially during the teen years, any communication from an adult is met with resistance. It’s just a state of mind during those years.

However, when feedback comes from a peer they may listen more carefully. Of course, that depends heavily on the other student’s delivery and status in the social order of the school.

5. Can Improve Academic Performance

When students have a clearer understanding of grading procedures, it can improve their academic performance. They construct a more comprehensive conception of quality that they then apply to their own work.

Students often find that after participating in peer feedback, as recipient and presenter, they need less feedback from the teacher to improve upon their own performance.

6. Exposure to Multiple Perspectives

When peer feedback is designed so that two or more students provide feedback on a student’s work, it provides different perspectives.

Each student providing the feedback may offer suggestions that reflect different points of view, sometimes even contrasting viewpoints.

This benefits the student receiving the feedback. They can see how their work is viewed from different angles and it exposes them to ideas they may not have considered previously.

Weaknesses of Peer Feedback 

1. social obstacles.

There are several possible social issues that can make peer feedback less effective. Obviously, peers that are friends may be reluctant to deliver criticism to each other.

Animosity among peers or power dynamics in the social order of the school can make a student less receptive to any feedback at all. When students refuse to listen to a peer it makes the feedback process ineffective.

In other cases, for a student that lacks confidence or social status, having their ideas ignored or rejected may damage their self-esteem. This in-turn will make them less willing to participate in the future.  

2. Creates Social Conflicts  

When one person criticizes the work of another, it can create a whole host of social problems . It can lead to tension, quarrels, harsh feelings, or escalate previous conflicts.

Students will be acutely aware of these possibilities. This may make them reluctant to be honest or participate at all.

But in the workplace, it can also cause power struggles and undermine the collegial atmosphere, especially if the feedback-giver has not effectively or professionally communicated their feedback.

3. Surface Level Suggestions 

Peers may not be able to offer valuable suggestions. Their knowledge of standards may be minimal. Their ability to engage in critical-analysis may not be well-developed. And, they may be unable to articulate advice that will allow a student to make meaningful adjustments to their work. 

This means that any feedback offered is unlikely to produce significant benefits to the student receiving that feedback.

4. Time Consuming 

Peer feedback activities are sometimes very time consuming. The coordination of the activity and the process itself takes time away from other instruction.

The manager ot teacher may also feel compelled to check on the feedback and make adjustments as necessary, which is also quite time consuming.

All in all, a cost-benefit analysis may lead some teachers to conclude that the amount of time it takes to do peer feedback does not pay the dividends that make it worthwhile.

Peer feedback involves peers evaluating the work of each other. There are many options for doing this.

For example, for those that like to incorporate technology, there are the Google and Microsoft platforms that enable students to post their work and receive feedback from peers.

Schools also utilize peer feedback so that teachers can hear valuable suggestions from colleagues. These feedback sessions can take place in small groups that focus on a specific lesson. Other versions help teachers collaborate on various issues to create schoolwide consistency across the curriculum.

There are numerous benefits to peer feedback. For instance, students develop a better understanding of grading procedures, rationale, and criteria.

In addition to building EQ skills that help peers learn how to deliver criticism in a positive way, they also learn how to receive negative feedback.

Of course, there are potential negatives as well. For example, peers may be reluctant to jeopardize friendships or reject suggestions coming from peers that lack status as authority figures.

Bijami, M., Kashef, S. H., & Sharafinejad, M. (2013). Peer feedback in learning English writing: Advantages and disadvantages. Journal of Studies in Education, 3 , 91-97.

Liu, N.-F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11 (3), 279–290.

Stančić, M. (2021) Peer assessment as a learning and self-assessment tool: a look inside the black box . Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 46 (6), 852-864.

Wiliam, D. (2018). Embedded Formative Assessment (2nd ed). Bloomington, Indiana: Solution Tree Press.

• Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 23 Achieved Status Examples
• Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 25 Defense Mechanisms Examples
• Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 15 Theory of Planned Behavior Examples
• Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 18 Adaptive Behavior Examples

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 23 Achieved Status Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 15 Ableism Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Defense Mechanisms Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 15 Theory of Planned Behavior Examples

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

University Writing Program

• Peer Review
• Collaborative Writing
• Writing for Metacognition
• Supporting Multilingual Writers
• Alternatives to Grading
• Making Feedback Matter
• Responding to Multilingual Writers’ Texts
• Model Library

Written by Rebecca Wilbanks

Peer review is a workhorse of the writing classroom, for good reason. Students receive feedback from each other without the need for the instructor to comment on every submission. In commenting on each other’s work, they develop critical judgment that they can bring to bear on their own writing. Working peer review into the schedule requires students to complete a draft ahead of the final deadline and sets the expectation that they will revise. Students benefit from seeing how others executed similar writing tasks. Finally, the skills that students practice during peer review—soliciting, providing, receiving, and responding to feedback—are essential to success in both scholarly and professional contexts. 

 While students often report that they found peer review to be valuable, students and faculty sometimes worry that peer feedback may be inaccurate or unhelpful. These concerns are valid: for peer review to be successful, students must receive clear instructions about what aspects of the text to focus on and training in how to formulate responses to peer drafts. The class must develop a shared sense of standards and a language to articulate them. The good news is that when peer review is supported in these ways, substantial evidence supports peer review’s benefits. With appropriate preparation, Melzer and Bean report that three or more students collectively produce feedback analogous to that of an instructor. Some classes even use a rigorous peer review system to generate grades for assignments . 

 It’s best to put the guidelines for your peer review in writing. These guidelines could take the form of a set of questions for students to respond to, a rubric to fill out (usually the same rubric that will be used to grade the assignment), or instructions for writing a response letter to the writer. Students will also benefit from seeing examples of helpful (and less helpful) feedback comments. You can use these sample comments to push students to provide greater specificity in their feedback (Less helpful: “Nice work. You did a really good job on this assignment.” More helpful: “I really like how you responded to the claims of Author X.”) 

What to Ask of Student Reviewers

As you design the peer review, consider how you will balance these different options: 

• Asking students to identify elements in the text. This approach allows students to check that expected elements of the text are present and legible to the audience. E.g.: Highlight the sentence(s) where the author states their thesis; or, identify the part of the text where the author explains the significance of their findings. In doing so, students practice recognizing the expected components of the genre they are working in, the different forms these components may take, and they help each other spot when a component is missing or underdeveloped.  
• Asking students to record their reactions as a reader. This option harnesses the power of peer review to provide a real audience. Here are some examples of reader-response comments: “Oh, now I see why you brought up [x]; it seems like your point is [y]”; “I’m having trouble with this sentence; I had to go back and read it a couple times”; “I understand this paragraph to be saying [x]…”; “This is a really neat point; I hadn’t thought of making that connection before.” This approach is based on the idea that understanding how one’s writing is coming across to readers and making changes accordingly is an essential part of the revision process.  
• Asking students to make judgments and/ or give advice. Students may evaluate the work with a rubric or be asked to summarize what is working well and what the student should prioritize for revision. This approach requires more training and practice with models to ensure that students and faculty have a shared understanding of how to apply the assessment criteria, and will be more successful as students gain more exposure to the genre they are working in. In these peer review guidelines from an upper-level writing course, you can see how I incorporated identification, reader-response, and evaluation.  

How to Structure a Peer Review Session

• A workshop with the entire class or section. In this case, everyone reads and comments on the same draft(s), often ahead of time. This format allows the instructor to guide the conversation and may be particularly helpful at the beginning of the semester. You may use the workshop format to review a sample assignment from a previous semester as practice before students review each other’s work.  
• As an alternative to having each student read and comment on each draft individually, Melzer and Bean suggest having groups exchange papers with other groups, and collaboratively write responses to each paper.  
• Asynchronous and online. By using the peer review function on Canvas, or online platforms such as Peerceptiv, CPR, or Eli review, instructors can assign peer review as a homework assignment and avoid taking up class time. Applications designed expressly for peer review include features that encourage high quality review; for example, CPR requires students to pass a “calibration test” (in which they give feedback on models that have already been graded by the instructor), while Peerceptiv allows students to rate the quality of peer reviews during the revision process in an anonymous system that awards points for helpful feedback.  

How to Get the Most out of Peer Review

Here are a few other suggestions to make peer review as effective as possible:

• Give students feedback on their feedback. If students are working in class, you can circulate through the different groups, reinforce insightful comments, and ask follow-up questions to get them to add depth or consider new aspects. You can also spot-check peer reviews and highlight examples of good feedback or ways to improve comments in class. Finally, you might ask students what feedback was most helpful during the revision process and recognize reviewers who do especially good work.  
• Be aware that some students may put their energy into editing the paper, focusing on grammar and sentence structure rather than higher-level issues. This is especially likely when English is not the first language of the author being reviewed. Make sure to emphasize that the goal of peer review is to focus on higher-level concerns, and recurring issues of expression that affect readability—not to line-edit. The Sweetland Center for Writing at the University of Michigan has guidelines and evaluation criteria for peer reviews tailored for situations involving multilingual students.  
• To encourage students to make use of the feedback, consider giving students time in class after the peer review to start working on their revisions or make notes about how they will begin.  

Cited and Recommended Sources

• Corbett, Steven J., et al., editors. Peer Pressure, Peer Power: Theory and Practice in Peer Review and Response for the Writing Classroom . First edition, Fountainhead Press, 2014. 
• Corbett, Steven J., and Michelle LaFrance, editors. Student Peer Review and Response: A Critical Sourcebook . Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2018. 
• Double, Kit S., et al. “The Impact of Peer Assessment on Academic Performance: A Meta-Analysis of Control Group Studies.” Educational Psychology Review , vol. 32, no. 2, June 2020, pp. 481–509. Springer Link , https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09510-3 . 
• Huisman, Bart, et al. “Peer Feedback on Academic Writing: Undergraduate Students’ Peer Feedback Role, Peer Feedback Perceptions and Essay Performance.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , vol. 43, no. 6, Aug. 2018, pp. 955–68. Taylor and Francis+NEJM , https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1424318 . 
• Lundstrom, Kristi, and Wendy Baker. “To Give Is Better than to Receive: The Benefits of Peer Review to the Reviewer’s Own Writing.” Journal of Second Language Writing , vol. 18, no. 1, Mar. 2009, pp. 30–43. ScienceDirect , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002 . 
• Melzer, Dan, and John C. Bean. Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom . 3rd ed., Jossey-Bass, 2021, https://www.amazon.com/Engaging-Ideas-Professors-Integrating-Classroom/dp/1119705401 . 
• Price, Edward, et al. “Validity of Peer Grading Using Calibrated Peer Review in a Guided-Inquiry, Conceptual Physics Course.” Physical Review Physics Education Research , vol. 12, no. 2, Dec. 2016, p. 020145. APS , https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020145 . 
• Rahimi, Mohammad. “Is Training Student Reviewers Worth Its While? A Study of How Training Influences the Quality of Students’ Feedback and Writing.” Language Teaching Research , vol. 17, no. 1, Jan. 2013, pp. 67–89. SAGE Journals , https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812459151 . 
• Using Peer Review to Improve Student Writing. University of Michigan Sweetland Center for Writing. Accessed 15 Jan. 2023. 
• van den Berg, Ineke, et al. “Designing Student Peer Assessment in Higher Education: Analysis of Written and Oral Peer Feedback.” Teaching in Higher Education , vol. 11, no. 2, Apr. 2006, pp. 135–47. srhe.tandfonline.com (Atypon) , https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510500527685 . 

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples

What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples

Published on December 17, 2021 by Tegan George . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Peer review, sometimes referred to as refereeing , is the process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Using strict criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decides whether to accept each submission for publication.

Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to the stringent process they go through before publication.

There are various types of peer review. The main difference between them is to what extent the authors, reviewers, and editors know each other’s identities. The most common types are:

• Single-blind review
• Double-blind review
• Triple-blind review

Collaborative review

Open review.

Relatedly, peer assessment is a process where your peers provide you with feedback on something you’ve written, based on a set of criteria or benchmarks from an instructor. They then give constructive feedback, compliments, or guidance to help you improve your draft.

Table of contents

What is the purpose of peer review, types of peer review, the peer review process, providing feedback to your peers, peer review example, advantages of peer review, criticisms of peer review, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about peer reviews.

Many academic fields use peer review, largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the manuscript. For this reason, academic journals are among the most credible sources you can refer to.

However, peer review is also common in non-academic settings. The United Nations, the European Union, and many individual nations use peer review to evaluate grant applications. It is also widely used in medical and health-related fields as a teaching or quality-of-care measure.

Peer assessment is often used in the classroom as a pedagogical tool. Both receiving feedback and providing it are thought to enhance the learning process, helping students think critically and collaboratively.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Depending on the journal, there are several types of peer review.

Single-blind peer review

The most common type of peer review is single-blind (or single anonymized) review . Here, the names of the reviewers are not known by the author.

While this gives the reviewers the ability to give feedback without the possibility of interference from the author, there has been substantial criticism of this method in the last few years. Many argue that single-blind reviewing can lead to poaching or intellectual theft or that anonymized comments cause reviewers to be too harsh.

Double-blind peer review

In double-blind (or double anonymized) review , both the author and the reviewers are anonymous.

Arguments for double-blind review highlight that this mitigates any risk of prejudice on the side of the reviewer, while protecting the nature of the process. In theory, it also leads to manuscripts being published on merit rather than on the reputation of the author.

Triple-blind peer review

While triple-blind (or triple anonymized) review —where the identities of the author, reviewers, and editors are all anonymized—does exist, it is difficult to carry out in practice.

Proponents of adopting triple-blind review for journal submissions argue that it minimizes potential conflicts of interest and biases. However, ensuring anonymity is logistically challenging, and current editing software is not always able to fully anonymize everyone involved in the process.

In collaborative review , authors and reviewers interact with each other directly throughout the process. However, the identity of the reviewer is not known to the author. This gives all parties the opportunity to resolve any inconsistencies or contradictions in real time, and provides them a rich forum for discussion. It can mitigate the need for multiple rounds of editing and minimize back-and-forth.

Collaborative review can be time- and resource-intensive for the journal, however. For these collaborations to occur, there has to be a set system in place, often a technological platform, with staff monitoring and fixing any bugs or glitches.

Lastly, in open review , all parties know each other’s identities throughout the process. Often, open review can also include feedback from a larger audience, such as an online forum, or reviewer feedback included as part of the final published product.

While many argue that greater transparency prevents plagiarism or unnecessary harshness, there is also concern about the quality of future scholarship if reviewers feel they have to censor their comments.

In general, the peer review process includes the following steps:

• First, the author submits the manuscript to the editor.
• Reject the manuscript and send it back to the author, or
• Send it onward to the selected peer reviewer(s)
• Next, the peer review process occurs. The reviewer provides feedback, addressing any major or minor issues with the manuscript, and gives their advice regarding what edits should be made.
• Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits and resubmit it to the editor for publication.

In an effort to be transparent, many journals are now disclosing who reviewed each article in the published product. There are also increasing opportunities for collaboration and feedback, with some journals allowing open communication between reviewers and authors.

It can seem daunting at first to conduct a peer review or peer assessment. If you’re not sure where to start, there are several best practices you can use.

Summarize the argument in your own words

Summarizing the main argument helps the author see how their argument is interpreted by readers, and gives you a jumping-off point for providing feedback. If you’re having trouble doing this, it’s a sign that the argument needs to be clearer, more concise, or worded differently.

If the author sees that you’ve interpreted their argument differently than they intended, they have an opportunity to address any misunderstandings when they get the manuscript back.

Separate your feedback into major and minor issues

It can be challenging to keep feedback organized. One strategy is to start out with any major issues and then flow into the more minor points. It’s often helpful to keep your feedback in a numbered list, so the author has concrete points to refer back to.

Major issues typically consist of any problems with the style, flow, or key points of the manuscript. Minor issues include spelling errors, citation errors, or other smaller, easy-to-apply feedback.

Tip: Try not to focus too much on the minor issues. If the manuscript has a lot of typos, consider making a note that the author should address spelling and grammar issues, rather than going through and fixing each one.

The best feedback you can provide is anything that helps them strengthen their argument or resolve major stylistic issues.

Give the type of feedback that you would like to receive

No one likes being criticized, and it can be difficult to give honest feedback without sounding overly harsh or critical. One strategy you can use here is the “compliment sandwich,” where you “sandwich” your constructive criticism between two compliments.

Be sure you are giving concrete, actionable feedback that will help the author submit a successful final draft. While you shouldn’t tell them exactly what they should do, your feedback should help them resolve any issues they may have overlooked.

As a rule of thumb, your feedback should be:

• Easy to understand
• Constructive

Below is a brief annotated research example. You can view examples of peer feedback by hovering over the highlighted sections.

Influence of phone use on sleep

Studies show that teens from the US are getting less sleep than they were a decade ago (Johnson, 2019) . On average, teens only slept for 6 hours a night in 2021, compared to 8 hours a night in 2011. Johnson mentions several potential causes, such as increased anxiety, changed diets, and increased phone use.

The current study focuses on the effect phone use before bedtime has on the number of hours of sleep teens are getting.

For this study, a sample of 300 teens was recruited using social media, such as Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. The first week, all teens were allowed to use their phone the way they normally would, in order to obtain a baseline.

The sample was then divided into 3 groups:

• Group 1 was not allowed to use their phone before bedtime.
• Group 2 used their phone for 1 hour before bedtime.
• Group 3 used their phone for 3 hours before bedtime.

All participants were asked to go to sleep around 10 p.m. to control for variation in bedtime . In the morning, their Fitbit showed the number of hours they’d slept. They kept track of these numbers themselves for 1 week.

Two independent t tests were used in order to compare Group 1 and Group 2, and Group 1 and Group 3. The first t test showed no significant difference ( p > .05) between the number of hours for Group 1 ( M = 7.8, SD = 0.6) and Group 2 ( M = 7.0, SD = 0.8). The second t test showed a significant difference ( p < .01) between the average difference for Group 1 ( M = 7.8, SD = 0.6) and Group 3 ( M = 6.1, SD = 1.5).

This shows that teens sleep fewer hours a night if they use their phone for over an hour before bedtime, compared to teens who use their phone for 0 to 1 hours.

Peer review is an established and hallowed process in academia, dating back hundreds of years. It provides various fields of study with metrics, expectations, and guidance to ensure published work is consistent with predetermined standards.

• Protects the quality of published research

Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. Any content that raises red flags for reviewers can be closely examined in the review stage, preventing plagiarized or duplicated research from being published.

• Gives you access to feedback from experts in your field

Peer review represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field and to improve your writing through their feedback and guidance. Experts with knowledge about your subject matter can give you feedback on both style and content, and they may also suggest avenues for further research that you hadn’t yet considered.

• Helps you identify any weaknesses in your argument

Peer review acts as a first defense, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process. This way, you’ll end up with a more robust, more cohesive article.

While peer review is a widely accepted metric for credibility, it’s not without its drawbacks.

• Reviewer bias

The more transparent double-blind system is not yet very common, which can lead to bias in reviewing. A common criticism is that an excellent paper by a new researcher may be declined, while an objectively lower-quality submission by an established researcher would be accepted.

• Delays in publication

The thoroughness of the peer review process can lead to significant delays in publishing time. Research that was current at the time of submission may not be as current by the time it’s published. There is also high risk of publication bias , where journals are more likely to publish studies with positive findings than studies with negative findings.

• Risk of human error

By its very nature, peer review carries a risk of human error. In particular, falsification often cannot be detected, given that reviewers would have to replicate entire experiments to ensure the validity of results.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Thematic analysis
• Discourse analysis
• Cohort study
• Ethnography

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Conformity bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Availability heuristic
• Attrition bias
• Social desirability bias

Peer review is a process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Utilizing rigorous criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decide whether to accept each submission for publication. For this reason, academic journals are often considered among the most credible sources you can use in a research project– provided that the journal itself is trustworthy and well-regarded.

In general, the peer review process follows the following steps: 

• Reject the manuscript and send it back to author, or 
• Send it onward to the selected peer reviewer(s) 
• Next, the peer review process occurs. The reviewer provides feedback, addressing any major or minor issues with the manuscript, and gives their advice regarding what edits should be made. 
• Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits, and resubmit it to the editor for publication.

Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. It also represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field. It acts as a first defense, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process.

Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to this stringent process they go through before publication.

Many academic fields use peer review , largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the published manuscript.

However, peer review is also common in non-academic settings. The United Nations, the European Union, and many individual nations use peer review to evaluate grant applications. It is also widely used in medical and health-related fields as a teaching or quality-of-care measure. 

A credible source should pass the CRAAP test  and follow these guidelines:

• The information should be up to date and current.
• The author and publication should be a trusted authority on the subject you are researching.
• The sources the author cited should be easy to find, clear, and unbiased.
• For a web source, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

George, T. (2023, June 22). What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 10, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/peer-review/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, ethical considerations in research | types & examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Fantastic Peer Review Feedback Examples You Can Swipe

Providing your co-workers with constructive criticism is not easy,  but one can agree it is an important part of an individual’s and the organisation’s growth. In this article, we dive deep and understand about review feedback, its importance, and the most subtle ways of providing them.

You might have heard the phrase – “teamwork is dream work,” right? But how does this phrase have such relevance? The main reason is the distribution of work, but with that comes the power of learning together.

When discussing an organisation, we all agree that we are a team. And being in a team, it is essential for the individual to understand their positive and negative points, and who else can be a better judge than the team members themselves, and there arrives the importance and need for peer feedback.

What are peer review feedbacks? What are peer review feedback examples? All What, Why, And How are answered in this blog, so read it until the end because it has much to offer.

What is peer review feedback?

A study has found that employees are 3x more engaged when receiving daily feedback from their managers than annual feedback. Furthermore, according to research, companies that give feedback consistently report turnover rates that are 14.9% lower than for employees who receive no feedback.

But what exactly is peer feedback? Going as per the theory, we can explain it as Peer review feedbacks are critiques and evaluations given by peers or colleagues within the same field of study or profession. It is a process where individuals review each other’s work, providing constructive criticism and feedback that can help improve the quality of the work.

One can use peer review feedback in various settings, including academic research, publishing, and performance evaluations. The purpose of peer review feedback is to ensure the work is high quality, accurate, and relevant to the intended audience.

What are the different types of peer review feedback?

360-degree feedback.

This is a type of peer review where employees receive feedback from their manager, colleagues, subordinates, and sometimes even external stakeholders. The feedback is collected anonymously, and the employee can use it to gain a holistic view of their performance and identify areas for improvement.

Improve your employee engagement in less than two minutes

Get started for free today.

Team evaluation

In this type of peer review, team members evaluate each other’s performance based on their contribution to the team’s goals, their ability to collaborate and communicate effectively, and their work ethics. It can help the team identify areas for improvement and work together more effectively.

Project-based evaluation

In this type of peer review, team members evaluate each other’s performance based on their contributions to a specific project. It can help identify areas where individual team members excelled and areas where they could improve.

Role-playing

In this type of peer review, team members take on an employee’s role and simulate a performance evaluation scenario. It can help them practice giving employee feedback and identify areas where they may struggle in providing constructive criticism.

Why is peer review important?

Peer review feedback is essential for employees to improve their performance, develop their skills, and foster a culture of continuous learning and development in the workplace. It is like reviews for any brand; they pay immense attention to the reviews, as it helps them to grow.

You might have noticed many brands even embed Google reviews on websites , so it helps other consumers to understand the brand. Talking about employees, here are some of the critical reasons why peer review feedback is so important:

Provides a more well-rounded evaluation

Peer review feedback allows employees to receive feedback from their colleagues, who have a different perspective on their work than their supervisors or managers. This more well-rounded evaluation can give employees a more accurate picture of their strengths and weaknesses and help them identify areas for improvement.

Fosters a culture of feedback and learning

Peer review feedback can help create a culture of feedback and learning in the workplace, where employees are encouraged to provide constructive feedback and support each other’s growth and development.

Encourages open and honest communication

Peer review feedback can encourage open and honest communication between employees, allowing them to share their thoughts and feelings about each other’s work. It can help build trust and improve collaboration within the team.

Helps identify blind spots

Peer review feedback can help employees identify blind spots in their work that they may not be aware of. By receiving feedback from colleagues who work closely with them, employees can gain a new perspective on their work and identify areas where they can improve.

Helps develop specific skills

Peer review feedback can develop particular skills, such as communication, problem-solving, or collaboration. By receiving feedback on these skills, employees can work on developing them and become more effective in their roles.

Helps in career development

Peer review feedback can identify areas where employees need to develop skills to progress in their careers. This feedback can help employees create a plan for professional development and work on developing the necessary skills to advance in their careers.

Increases employee engagement

Peer review feedback can help increase employee engagement , showing that the organisation cares about its development and wants them to succeed. This can improve employee morale and lead to increased productivity and job satisfaction.

Improves teamwork

Peer review feedback can help improve teamwork and collaboration by identifying areas where team members need to work together more effectively. This can lead to more efficient workflows, better communication, and more successful project outcomes.

Peer review feedback examples

There are various examples and categories of peer reviews. For your convenience, we have filtered them separately and have mentioned some of the best peer feedback review examples of each type.

Positive peer review feedback examples

Positive feedback is an essential part of peer review, as it can help build morale, boost confidence, and reinforce positive behaviour. Here are some examples of positive feedback that can be given in a peer review:

“I really appreciate the effort you put into that project. Your attention to detail and hard work made a big difference.”

“You always come to meetings prepared and ready to contribute. Your insights are valuable, and I appreciate your dedication to the team.”

“Your communication skills are excellent. You do a great job of keeping everyone informed and making sure we are all on the same page.”

“I admire your positive attitude and ability to stay calm under pressure. It makes working with you a pleasure.”

“You have a great sense of humour, and your positive energy is contagious. It makes the workplace a more enjoyable place to be.”

“Your teamwork skills are outstanding. You are always willing to help out and go the extra mile to ensure the team’s success.”

“You have a talent for solving complex problems. Your creative solutions have been invaluable to the team.”

“Your leadership skills are impressive. You inspire the team to do their best and lead by example.”

“Your work ethic is outstanding. You are always willing to put in the extra effort to ensure the work is completed to a high standard.”

“You have a great eye for design. Your creativity and attention to detail have greatly impacted our projects.”

Negative peer review feedback examples

While often it can be challenging to give, negative feedback is integral to peer review. It can help employees identify areas for improvement and develop their skills. Here are some examples of negative feedback that can be given in a peer review:

“I noticed that you missed the deadline for the project. This created extra work for the team and caused delays. In the future, prioritizing deadlines is important to ensure the team can work efficiently.”

“I’ve noticed that you tend to interrupt others during meetings. This can make it difficult for everyone to participate and share their ideas. It’s important to give everyone a chance to speak and listen actively.”

“Your communication style can sometimes be abrupt and dismissive. This can come across as rude and make it difficult for others to work with you. It’s important to be mindful of your tone and approach when communicating with others.”

“I’ve noticed that you tend to avoid taking responsibility when things go wrong. This can create a lack of accountability and make it difficult for the team to work together effectively. It’s important to take ownership of your actions and work with the team to find solutions.”

“Your work quality has been inconsistent lately. It’s important to maintain a high level of quality in everything we do to ensure that our work meets the standards of our clients and stakeholders.”

“I’ve noticed that you tend to dominate conversations during meetings. Allowing everyone to speak and share their ideas is important to ensure that the team can work collaboratively and effectively.”

“Your attention to detail could be improved. It’s important to check your work carefully to ensure that it is error-free and meets the project’s requirements.”

“I’ve noticed that you tend to resist feedback and suggestions from others. It’s important to be open to feedback and consider different perspectives to ensure we can improve as a team.”

Improvement peer review feedback examples

Providing constructive feedback to peers can help them identify areas for improvement and develop their skills. Here are some examples of improving peer feedback that can be given in a peer review:

“I noticed you get easily overwhelmed when working on complex projects. Have you considered breaking down the project into smaller tasks and prioritizing them to make it more manageable?”

“Your presentation skills are strong, but there is room for improvement in your visual aids. Have you considered using more engaging and informative visuals to help convey your message?”

“You have a great work ethic, but I’ve noticed that you tend to struggle with time management. Have you considered setting clear goals and creating a schedule to help manage your workload more effectively?”

“Your written communication skills are good, but there is room for improvement in your grammar and spelling. Have you considered using a grammar checker or writing course to improve your skills?”

“Your problem-solving skills are strong, but I’ve noticed that you tend to jump to conclusions only after fully analyzing the situation. Have you considered taking more time to gather information and consider all the possible solutions before deciding?”

“You have strong technical skills, but there is room for improvement in your interpersonal skills. Have you considered taking a course or workshop to improve your communication and teamwork skills?”

“I’ve noticed that you tend to avoid taking on leadership roles. Have you considered taking on a leadership position or volunteering for a project that will help you develop these skills?”

“Your attention to detail is strong, but there is room for improvement in your ability to manage multiple tasks simultaneously. Have you considered using a task management tool or taking a course on time management?”

“Your creativity and problem-solving skills are impressive, but there is room for improvement in your ability to work collaboratively with others. Have you considered taking a course on teamwork and collaboration?”

“You have strong technical skills, but there is room for improvement in your ability to explain complex concepts to non-technical stakeholders. Have you considered practising your communication skills and focusing on simplifying technical jargon?”

Peer review feedback is essential for employees to improve their performance, develop their skills, and foster a culture of continuous learning and development in the workplace.

By encouraging open and honest communication, identifying blind spots, and developing specific skills, peer review feedback can help employees become more effective in their roles and advance in their careers. Additionally, by fostering a culture of feedback and learning, peer review feedback can improve teamwork, employee engagement, and organisational outcomes.

About the Author

I’m Daisy, a full-time techie and writing enthusiast. Have served over 10000+ clients all across the world. I have a distinctive and eccentric writing style and mainly my interests are inclined toward digital marketing trends and social media & review platforms (like Instagram, FB, Google, Airbnb review widget and Twitter, etc)

Related articles

Peer Review – Best Practices

“Peer review is broken. But let’s do it as effectively and as conscientiously as possible.” — Rosy Hosking, CommLab

“ A thoughtful, well-presented evaluation of a manuscript, with tangible suggestions for improvement and a recommendation that is supported by the comments, is the most valuable contribution that you can make as a reviewer, and such a review is greatly appreciated by both the authors of the manuscript and the editors of the journal. ” — ACS Reviewer Lab

Criteria for success

A successful peer review:

• Contains a brief summary of the entire manuscript. Show the editors and authors what you think the main claims of the paper are, and your assessment of its impact on the field. What did the authors try to show and what did they try to claim?
• Clearly directs the editor on the path forward. Should this paper be accepted, rejected, or revised?
• Identifies any major (internal inconsistencies, missing data, etc.) concerns, and clearly locates them within the document. Why do you think that the direction specified is correct? What were the issues you identified that led you to that decision?
• Lists (if appropriate — i.e. if you are suggesting revision or acceptance) minor concerns to help the authors make the paper watertight (typographical errors, grammatical errors, missing references, unclear explanations of methodology, etc.).
• Explain how the arguments can be better defended through analysis, experiments, etc.
• Is reasonable within the original manuscript scope ; does not suggest modifications that would require excessive time or expense, or that could instead be addressed by adjusting the manuscript’s claims .

Structure Diagram

A typical peer review is 1-2 pages long. You can divide your content roughly as follows:

Identify your purpose

The purpose of your pre-publication peer review is two-fold:

• Scientific integrity (which can be handled with editorial office assistance)
• Quality of data collection methods and data analysis
• Veracity of conclusions presented in the manuscript
• Determine match between the proposed submission and the journal scope (subject matter and potential impact). For example, a paper that holds significance only for a particular subfield of chemical engineering is not appropriate for a broad multidisciplinary journal. Determining match is usually done in partnership with the editor, who can answer questions of journal scope.

Analyze your audience

The audience for your peer review work is unusual compared to most other kinds of communication you will undertake as a scientist. Your primary audience is the journal editor, who will use your feedback to make a decision to accept or reject the manuscript. Your secondary audience is the author, who will use your suggestions to make improvements to the manuscript. Typically, you will be known to the journal editors, but anonymous to the authors of the manuscript. For this reason, it is important that you balance your review between these two parties.

The editors are most interested in hearing your critical feedback on the science that is presented, and whether there are any claims that need to be adjusted. The editors need to know:

• Your areas of expertise within the manuscript
• The paper’s significance to your particular field

To help you, most journals willhave guidelines for reviewers to follow, which can be found on the journal’s website (e.g., Cell Guidelines ).

The authors are interested in:

• Understanding what aspects of their logic are not easily understood
• Other layers of experimentation or discussion that would be necessary to support claims
• Any additional information they would need to convince you in their arguments

Format Your Document in a Standard Way

Peer review feedback is most easily digested and understood by both editors and authors when it arrives in a clear, logical format. Most commonly the format is (1) Summary, (2) Decision, (3) Major Concerns, and (4) Minor Concerns (see also Structure Diagram above).

There is also often a multiple choice form to “rate” the paper on a number of criteria. This numerical scoring guide may be used by editors to weigh the manuscript against other submissions; think of it mostly as a checklist of topics to cover in your review.

The summary grounds the remainder of your review. You need to demonstrate that you have read and understood the manuscript, which helps the authors understand what other readers are understanding to be the manuscript’s main claims. This is also an opportunity to demonstrate your own expertise and critical thinking, which makes a positive impression on the editors who often may be important people in your field.

It is helpful to use the following guidelines:

• Start with a one-sentence description of the paper’s main point, followed by several sentences summarizing specific important findings that lead to the paper’s logical conclusion.
• Then, highlight the significance of the important findings that were shown in the paper.
• Conclude with the reviewer’s overall opinion of what the manuscript does and does not do well.

Your decision must be clearly stated to aid the interpretation of the rest of your comments (see Criteria for Success). Do this either as part of the concluding sentence in the summary paragraph, or as a separate sentence after the summary. In general, you try to categorize within the following framework:

• Accept with no revisions
• Accept with minor revisions
• Accept with major revisions

Some journals will have specific rules or different wording, so make sure you understand what your options are.

Most reviews also contain the option to provide confidential comments to the editor, which can be used to provide the editor with more detail on the decision. In extreme cases, this can also be where concerns about plagiarism, data manipulation, or other ethical issues can be raised.

The Decision area is also where you can state which aspects of complex manuscripts you feel you have the expertise to comment on.

Major Concerns (where relevant)

Depending on the journal that you are reviewing for, there might be criteria for significance, novelty, industrial relevance, or other field-specific criteria that need to be accounted for in your major concerns. Major concerns, if they are serious, typically lead to decisions that are either “reject” or “accept with major revisions.”

Major concerns include…

• issues with the arguments presented in the paper that are not internally consistent,
• or present arguments that go against significant understanding in the field, without the necessary data to back it up .
• a lack of key experimental or computational data that are vital to justify the claims made in the paper.
• Examples: a study that reports the identity of an unexpected peak in a GC-MS spectrum without accounting for common interferences, or claims pertaining to human health when all the data presented is in a model organism or in vitro .

One of the most important aspects of providing a review with major concerns is your ability to cite resolutions. For example…

• If you think that someone’s argument is going against the laws of thermodynamics, what data would they need to show you to convince you otherwise?
• What types of new statistical analysis would you need to see to believe the claims being made about the clinical trials presented in this work?
• Are there additional control experiments that are needed to show that this catalyst is actually promoting the reaction along the pathway suggested?

Minor Concerns (optional)

Minor concerns are primarily issues that are raised that would improve the clarity of the message, but don’t impact the logic of the argument. Most commonly these are…

• Grammatical errors within the manuscript
• Typographical errors
• Missing references
• Insufficient background or methods information (e.g., an introduction section with only five references)
• Insufficient or possibly extraneous detail
• Unclear or poorly worded explanations (e.g., a paragraph in the discussion section that seems to contradict other parts of the paper)
• Possible options for improving the readability of any graphics (e.g., incorrect labels on a figure)

While minor concerns are not always present in the case of reviews with many major concerns, they are almost always included in the case of manuscripts where the decision is an accept or accept with minor revisions.

Offer revisions that are reasonable and in scope

Think about the feasibility of the experiments you suggest to address your concerns. Are you suggesting 3 years’ more work that could form the basis for a whole other publication? If you are suggesting vast amounts of animal work or sequencing, then are the experiments going to be prohibitively expensive? If the paper would stand without this next layer of experimentation, then think seriously about the real value of these additional experiments. One of the major issues with scientific publishing is the length of time taken to get to the finish line. Don’t muddy the water for fellow authors unnecessarily!

As an alternative to more experiments, does the author need to adjust their claims to fit the extent of their evidence rather than the other way round? If they did that, would this still be a good paper for the journal you are reviewing for?

Structure your comments in a way that makes sense to the audience

Formatting choices:

• Separate each of your concerns clearly with line breaks (or numbering) and organize them in the order they appear in the manuscript.
• Quote directly from the text and bold or italicize relevant phrases to illustrate your points
• Include page and line/paragraph numbers for easy reference.

Style/Concision:

• Keep your comments as brief as possible by simply stating the issue and your suggestion for fixing it in a few sentences or less.

Offer feedback that is constructive and professional

Be unbiased and professional.

Although the identities of the authors are sometimes kept anonymous during the review process (this is rare in chemical and biological research), research communities are typically small and you may try to “guess” who the author is based on the methodology used or the writing style. Regardless, it is important to remain unbiased and professional in your review. Do not assume anything about the paper based on your perception of, for example, the author’s status or the impact their results may have on your own research. If you feel that this might be an issue for you, you must inform the editor that there is a conflict of interest and you should not review this manuscript.

Be polite and diplomatic .

Receiving critical feedback, even when constructive, can be difficult and possibly emotional for the authors. Since you are not anonymous to the editors, being unnecessarily harsh in your feedback will reflect badly on you in the end. Use similar language to what you would use when discussing research at a conference, or when talking with your advisor in a meeting. Manuscript peer review is a good way to practice these “soft” skills which are important yet often neglected in the science community.

Additional resources about effective peer reviewing

• American Chemical Society Reviewer Lab
• Nature.com offers a peer review training course for purchase:
• https://masterclasses.nature.com/courses/205
• http://senseaboutscience.org/activities/peer-review-the-nuts-and-bolts/
• http://asapbio.org/six-essential-reads-on-peer-review

This article was written by Mike Orella (MIT Chem E Comm Lab); edited by Mica Smith (MIT Chem E Comm Lab) and Rosy Hosking (Broad Comm Lab)

Peer Review Sample Template (With Peer Feedback Examples and Peer Evaluation Samples)

Take control of your peer-to-peer review process with this peer evaluation template and examples of peer review feedback..

Peer evaluation and peer-to-peer reviews can be a powerful part of your employee feedback process. Peer feedback can shed light on teamwork and employee performance from a different perspective, but it can also introduce new risks and complications to any review process. Use our peer evaluation template, and check out our examples of peer review feedback, to make sure you're doing peer reviews correctly.

Need to write a performance review? We've got tools for that, too! Check out our Annual Performance Review Template (it's optimized for ChatGPT)! And if you're looking to conduct 360-degree reviews, check out our 360 Review Template and Guide .

Download this template

Includes versions for:, google slides, microsoft powerpoint, team health score, learn how to conduct effective peer reviews (with examples of peer review feedback).

Peer reviews can be a game-changer for teams looking to improve their performance . When done right, they provide valuable insights into how individuals contribute to the team, help address areas for improvement, and foster better communication. In professional environments, where team dynamics can make or break a project, peer reviews offer a unique way for employees to grow together and understand how they can collaborate more effectively. And unlike traditional performance reviews that only focus on feedback from a manager, peer reviews can shed light on valuable facets of an individual's performance that might otherwise be overlooked.

Peer reviews aren’t just about pointing out what’s going wrong—they’re also about celebrating what’s going right and finding ways to build on those strengths. A well-structured peer review can help teams define their norms , evolve as needed, and ultimately get more done with fewer misunderstandings.

This guide will walk you through how to conduct effective peer reviews, complete with examples of feedback and tips to make sure the process benefits both individuals and the team as a whole.

What is a Peer Review?

A peer review is a process where employees evaluate each other’s performance. Unlike a top-down review, where a manager evaluates their direct reports , peer reviews allow team members to give and receive feedback from those they work closely with. This process offers a 360-degree view of an individual’s strengths and areas for improvement from a perspective that managers might not always see.

Why Peer Reviews Matter

Peer reviews are crucial because they provide more comprehensive feedback. Co-workers often have the best insight into each other’s day-to-day work, how they communicate, and how they collaborate with the team. This leads to more accurate evaluations, helping to identify both strengths and blind spots.

{{inline-cta}}

For example, if someone excels at helping their teammates troubleshoot problems, but struggles with time management, a peer review is more likely to capture these nuances. It’s not just about the quality of their work, but how they contribute to the team as a whole.

Peer reviews also serve as a way to reinforce team norms. The feedback helps individuals understand where they fit in and how their personal work style impacts the team dynamic. Tools like TeamDynamics take this a step further by providing an in-depth look at these dynamics, allowing teams to evolve and improve their collaboration over time.

By using structured templates and focusing on clear, actionable feedback, peer reviews create an opportunity for teams to grow together and help everyone perform at their best.

Key Benefits of Peer Reviews

Peer reviews aren’t just a box to check during performance evaluations—they offer real value that can help elevate both individual performance and team dynamics. Here are the key benefits:

1. Improved Communication

One of the biggest benefits of peer reviews is the opportunity to improve communication within the team. These reviews encourage open dialogue, allowing team members to provide direct feedback to each other. Instead of waiting for annual performance reviews or relying solely on management feedback, peer reviews create more frequent opportunities for constructive conversations.

For example, if a team member consistently communicates their ideas poorly during meetings, their peers can point this out in a respectful and actionable way. By addressing communication issues early, peer reviews help prevent small problems from becoming bigger barriers to teamwork.

2. Enhanced Collaboration

When people understand each other’s strengths and weaknesses, collaboration becomes smoother. Peer reviews highlight where team members excel and where they need support, allowing everyone to align their efforts more effectively. They foster a team culture where collaboration is based on trust, respect, and a clear understanding of each person’s role.

For instance, if a team member excels at managing deadlines but struggles with brainstorming creative solutions, peer reviews can make this visible. Others who are stronger in idea generation can step in, improving overall collaboration.

3. Continuous Professional Development

Receiving feedback from peers provides valuable insights that can fuel personal growth. Peer reviews push individuals to reflect on their work habits, interpersonal skills, and contributions to the team. The constructive feedback they receive can be used to build on strengths and address areas for improvement, leading to long-term professional development.

For example, feedback like, “You’re great at keeping the team motivated, but you might need to pay more attention to detail in project planning,” gives a clear direction for growth. This empowers employees to actively work on self-improvement.

Peer reviews are a great tool for promoting open communication, encouraging collaboration, and supporting professional development. And when paired with tools like TeamDynamics , which helps teams better understand how individual preferences affect collaboration, peer reviews can take your team to the next level.

How to Conduct a Peer Review: A Step-by-Step Guide

Conducting peer reviews requires more than just asking for feedback—it’s about creating a structured process that encourages thoughtful, constructive responses. Follow these steps to ensure your peer review process is effective and beneficial for your team, and check out the examples of peer review feedback to get a sense for what to do.

Step 1: Set Clear Expectations

Before starting the peer review process, it’s important to set clear expectations. Let your team know the purpose of the peer reviews, whether it’s for improving communication, identifying growth opportunities, or fostering collaboration. When everyone understands the goal, they’re more likely to provide meaningful, honest feedback.

Example : “The goal of this peer review is to help each team member understand how they contribute to the team’s success and identify areas for growth.”

Step 2: Use a Structured Format

A structured format ensures that feedback is consistent and fair across all participants. A template (like the one provided in this post) can guide team members to focus on key areas such as communication, collaboration, strengths, and areas for improvement. A good template encourages specific, actionable feedback, rather than vague or generic comments.

A template that includes sections like “Strengths,” “Areas for Improvement,” and “Suggestions for Growth” can help guide the review process. This structure ensures that all important aspects are covered and feedback is balanced between positive and constructive.

Example : Use our free downloadable peer review sample template to take care of this step!

Step 3: Encourage Specific Feedback

Vague feedback like “You’re doing great!” or “You need to work on communication” won’t provide much value. Encourage your team to offer specific examples of both positive behavior and areas that need improvement. Specific feedback allows the recipient to take action and make meaningful changes.

Example : Instead of saying, “You need to communicate better,” encourage reviewers to write something more detailed, like, “During team meetings, you sometimes dominate the conversation. Try to leave more space for others to share their ideas.”

Step 4: Review Results and Follow Up

The peer review process doesn’t end when the feedback is collected. Follow up with individuals to discuss their reviews, focusing on areas where they can grow. This is a chance for employees to ask questions, gain clarity, and set actionable goals based on the feedback they received.

Example : After reviewing their peer feedback, a team member might set a goal to improve their communication style during meetings or seek additional support to enhance their project management skills.

By following these steps, and learning from these peer feedback examples, you can conduct peer reviews that foster growth, improve communication, and strengthen collaboration. Tools like TeamDynamics can further enhance the process by providing insights into how individual preferences fit into the team’s overall working style, helping you anticipate friction points and improve team dynamics.

Peer Review Examples

One of the most important aspects of peer reviews is providing feedback that’s clear, specific, and actionable. Below are several examples of peer review phrasing for both positive and constructive peer review feedback that can guide your team in giving better reviews.

1. Positive Peer Feedback Example: Task Management

Strength Example : “[Peer] consistently delivers projects ahead of deadlines and always meets or exceeds expectations. Their attention to detail ensures that the team’s work is accurate and professional.”

Why this works : This feedback highlights a specific strength—meeting deadlines—and connects it to how it benefits the team’s overall success. It’s clear and gives the peer a concrete example of what they’re doing well.

2. Constructive Peer Feedback Example: Task Prioritization

Area for Improvement Example : “While [Peer] is highly skilled at managing individual tasks, they sometimes struggle with prioritizing multiple projects. I suggest setting up a weekly check-in to help manage workload and deadlines more effectively.”

Why this works : This feedback addresses a specific issue—prioritization—and offers a constructive suggestion for improvement. Rather than simply pointing out a flaw, it provides a solution.

3. Positive Peer Review Example: Collaboration

Strength Example : “[Peer] is always willing to jump in and help others when needed, whether it’s brainstorming ideas or troubleshooting problems. Their willingness to collaborate makes them an invaluable member of the team.”

Why this works : It highlights a key strength—collaboration—and gives a specific example of how this benefits the team, making it easier for the peer to recognize and continue this behavior.

4. Constructive Peer Review Example: Dominating Discussions

Area for Improvement Example : “While [Peer] is very knowledgeable, they tend to dominate conversations during meetings. Encouraging others to contribute their ideas could improve team discussions.”

Why this works : The feedback is direct, but not harsh. It points out a behavior that can be improved and suggests a specific way to address it, making it actionable.

5. Positive Peer to Peer Review Example: Communication

Strength Example : “[Peer] is great at breaking down complex information and explaining it in a way that’s easy to understand. This is particularly helpful when we’re onboarding new team members.”

Why this works : This feedback not only praises the peer’s ability to simplify complex ideas but also connects it to the value they bring to new team members, reinforcing the importance of this skill.

6. Constructive Peer to Peer Review Example: Email Clarity

Area for Improvement Example : “[Peer] sometimes sends emails that are unclear or too long. To improve clarity, try focusing on key points and keeping messages more concise.”

Why this works : The feedback is specific (emails are too long) and offers a concrete suggestion (focus on key points) that can be implemented right away.

7. Positive Peer Evaluation Example: Leadership

Strength Example : “[Peer] consistently steps up to lead projects, ensuring that tasks are delegated appropriately and deadlines are met. Their leadership is a major asset to the team.”

Why this works : This highlights leadership qualities in a specific context (leading projects), making the feedback both clear and motivating.

8. Constructive Peer Evaluation Example: Delegation

Area for Improvement Example : “While [Peer] takes on leadership roles well, they could improve by delegating more tasks to others. This would allow the team to distribute workload more evenly and empower other members to take on more responsibility.”

Why this works : This feedback acknowledges the peer’s leadership strengths while also pointing out an area for improvement—delegation. Peer evaluation examples like this highlight the importance of offering a concrete solution (delegating more) that the peer can act on.

9. Positive Feedback Example: Problem-Solving

Strength Example : “[Peer] is quick to identify problems and always offers practical solutions. Their problem-solving abilities help the team stay on track, even when unexpected issues arise.”

Why this works : This feedback is specific to the peer’s ability to handle challenges, emphasizing how their problem-solving contributes to team success.

10. Constructive Feedback Example: Decision-Making

Area for Improvement Example : “Although [Peer] excels at identifying problems, they sometimes hesitate to make decisions quickly. I suggest working on building more confidence in making decisions when faced with tight deadlines.”

Why this works : Peer evaluation examples like this identify a clear area of improvement (hesitation in decision-making) and provides a solution (building confidence in making decisions), making it constructive and actionable.

11. Positive Feedback Example: Creativity

Strength Example : “[Peer] always brings fresh, creative ideas to brainstorming sessions. Their ability to think outside the box has led to some of our most innovative solutions.”

Why this works : This feedback praises the peer’s creativity in a specific setting (brainstorming sessions), making it clear what aspect of their performance is appreciated.

12. Constructive Feedback Example: Focus

Area for Improvement Example : “While [Peer] is highly creative, they sometimes struggle to focus on completing tasks once the brainstorming phase is over. Setting clearer goals and breaking work into smaller tasks could help maintain focus throughout the project.”

Why this works : This feedback acknowledges the peer’s creativity while identifying a challenge (staying focused) and offering a strategy to overcome it (setting clearer goals).

By using specific peer to peer review examples like these, peer reviews become more actionable and helpful. Vague feedback doesn’t give people the direction they need to improve. With clear, specific insights, your team can work more effectively together and make meaningful progress.

Additionally, tools like TeamDynamics can enhance peer reviews by helping team members understand how their communication styles and collaboration habits impact the team. By understanding each person’s unique preferences, TeamDynamics helps teams address common friction points and work together more smoothly.

Common Pitfalls to Avoid in Peer Reviews

While peer reviews can be incredibly beneficial, they can also go wrong if not conducted thoughtfully. To ensure your peer review process is successful, it’s important to avoid some common mistakes. Here are key pitfalls to watch out for and how to prevent them.

1. Vague or General Feedback

One of the most common mistakes in peer reviews is offering feedback that’s too vague to be helpful. Comments like “You’re doing great” or “You need to improve” don’t provide enough context for the recipient to act on. Without specifics, it’s difficult for someone to understand what they’re doing well or where they need to focus their efforts.

• How to Avoid It : Encourage your team to use concrete examples in their feedback. Ask them to cite specific behaviors or situations that demonstrate strengths or areas for improvement. Structured templates (like the one provided earlier) can also guide reviewers to focus on key performance areas.

Example : Instead of saying, “You’re a good team player,” try, “You regularly step in to help colleagues meet deadlines, which improves our team’s overall efficiency.”

2. Bias and Favoritism

Another pitfall is the risk of bias or favoritism. This can occur when a reviewer gives overly positive or negative feedback based on personal feelings rather than objective observations. Whether it’s favoring a close friend or unfairly criticizing someone they don’t get along with, bias can undermine the integrity of the peer review process.

• How to Avoid It : Provide guidelines on objective feedback and remind team members to base their evaluations on behavior and performance, not personal relationships. Anonymous reviews can also help reduce bias, as they allow reviewers to be more honest without fear of repercussions.

Example : Focus on specific actions rather than general opinions. Instead of, “I don’t think [Peer] is very motivated,” try, “[Peer] missed several project deadlines last month, which impacted the team’s progress.”

3. Overemphasis on Negative Feedback

It’s easy to focus on what someone is doing wrong, but an overemphasis on negative feedback can demoralize the recipient and make them defensive. If the review is too critical, it may not motivate improvement—instead, it could harm team morale and trust.

• How to Avoid It : Balance your feedback by highlighting both strengths and areas for growth. A good peer review should acknowledge what the person is doing well while also addressing opportunities for improvement. This encourages a more constructive dialogue.

Example : Pair negative feedback with positive reinforcement. Instead of focusing only on weaknesses, say something like, “[Peer] could improve their presentation skills, but they are excellent at preparing the data behind those presentations.”

4. Lack of Actionable Suggestions

Feedback that points out problems but doesn’t offer solutions can leave the recipient feeling stuck. Without actionable advice, they won’t know how to improve or what steps to take next.

• How to Avoid It : Always pair constructive criticism with suggestions for improvement. This turns feedback into a learning opportunity and helps the recipient take clear, actionable steps toward better performance.

Example : Instead of saying, “You need to be more organized,” offer something specific like, “Try using a project management tool to keep track of your deadlines and prioritize tasks more effectively.”

5. No Follow-Up After the Review

Even the best peer review process can fall flat if there’s no follow-up. Once feedback is given, it’s crucial to ensure that it leads to action and improvement. Without follow-up, employees may not fully understand the feedback or may forget to implement changes.

• How to Avoid It : Schedule a follow-up meeting with each individual after the review process. Discuss the feedback they received and create a plan to address any areas for improvement. This shows employees that the feedback is important and encourages them to act on it.

Example : After a peer review, a manager might say, “Based on the feedback you received, let’s set a goal to improve your time management skills over the next month. We can check in weekly to see how it’s going.”

By avoiding these common pitfalls, you can ensure that your peer reviews are productive, fair, and useful for both individuals and the team. Tools like TeamDynamics can help prevent these issues by offering an additional layer of understanding about how team members’ unique preferences influence their behavior. This deeper insight can help teams address potential biases, improve communication, and make the feedback process even more effective.

How Peer Reviews Enhance Team Dynamics

Peer reviews offer more than just individual feedback—they can significantly improve how a team functions as a whole. By fostering open communication and providing opportunities for growth, peer reviews can strengthen team dynamics and create a more cohesive, high-performing group. Here’s how:

1. Promoting Transparency and Trust

One of the key ways peer reviews improve team dynamics is by promoting transparency. When team members are encouraged to give and receive honest, constructive feedback, it builds trust. Everyone understands that feedback is a normal part of team communication, which helps create an open and safe environment.

Example : A peer review process where team members regularly exchange feedback creates a culture of trust. Team members become more comfortable voicing concerns and offering praise, leading to a more transparent and open team dynamic.

2. Enhancing Communication Skills

Peer reviews force team members to reflect on how they communicate with one another. Whether it's about the clarity of emails, how ideas are shared in meetings, or how well people listen to others, peer reviews provide a platform to give and receive specific feedback on communication styles.

Example : During a peer review, a team member might receive feedback that their emails are often too long and difficult to follow. This insight allows them to make changes, which improves the efficiency of the entire team’s communication moving forward.

3. Aligning Individual Strengths with Team Goals

Through peer reviews, team members gain a clearer understanding of each other’s strengths. This not only helps individuals grow but also allows the team to leverage those strengths more effectively to meet its goals. When individuals know where their peers excel, they can rely on each other in a more focused way.

Example : If a peer review highlights that one team member excels in creative problem-solving, the team can tap into that skill when brainstorming solutions, helping the group move forward more efficiently.

4. Reducing Conflict and Improving Collaboration

When feedback is given regularly and constructively, peer reviews can help address potential points of tension before they escalate into conflicts. By encouraging honest communication, peer reviews allow team members to address any issues directly, reducing misunderstandings and fostering better collaboration.

Example : If a team member feels frustrated by another’s lack of responsiveness, peer reviews give them the chance to bring it up in a constructive way. This early intervention helps resolve conflicts before they damage team morale or productivity.

5. Defining and Evolving Team Norms

Every team operates with a set of norms—whether they’re explicitly defined or not. Peer reviews help teams reflect on and define these norms more clearly. Feedback often reveals patterns in how individuals work, communicate, and collaborate, which can then be used to evolve the team’s way of working for the better.

Example : If multiple peer reviews show that team members feel excluded from decision-making, it might prompt the team to evolve their decision-making process to be more inclusive, benefiting the entire group.

TeamDynamics and Peer Reviews: A Perfect Match

While peer reviews provide valuable insight into how individuals contribute to the team, tools like TeamDynamics take it a step further. TeamDynamics helps teams understand how individual preferences and behaviors align with or differ from team norms. By providing a detailed look at how each person’s working style fits into the team, TeamDynamics makes it easier to identify potential friction points and areas for improvement.

For example, if a team member struggles with communication, TeamDynamics can help reveal whether it’s due to differences in communication styles or a mismatch in team norms. This deeper understanding allows teams to evolve their norms in ways that make collaboration smoother and more effective.

By pairing peer reviews with TeamDynamics , you can ensure that feedback is not only about improving individual performance but also about building a stronger, more collaborative team.

Peer reviews are a powerful tool for improving both individual performance and team collaboration. When done right, they encourage open communication, build trust, and help align individual strengths with the team’s goals. They also provide an opportunity for ongoing professional development by offering constructive feedback that helps employees grow.

By establishing a clear structure, encouraging specific feedback, and following up on the results, you can make peer reviews an effective part of your team’s workflow. Not only will this process boost individual performance, but it will also strengthen team dynamics, leading to better collaboration and productivity.

However, the benefits don’t stop with individual feedback. Pairing peer reviews with tools like TeamDynamics can take your team to the next level. TeamDynamics helps you better understand how each team member’s personal preferences and working styles fit into the larger team context. This can help you anticipate points of friction, improve communication, and evolve team norms as needed. It’s the perfect complement to a peer review process, giving you and your team deeper insights into how you can work together more effectively.

Try TeamDynamics for free and learn how it can help your team!

Incorporating peer reviews into your team’s regular routine, along with tools like TeamDynamics , can transform how your team communicates, collaborates, and achieves its goals.

Enjoyed this read?

Get updates whenever we post more content like this. Unsubscribe anytime.

When we have team meetings…

Our team understands what it's being asked to do., how well do you know your team.

We've analyzed thousands of teams across industries, functions, and geographies. Here's a few things we've found.

Understanding how your team works is the key to getting work done (and having fun while doing it). You might be surprised what you learn.

TeamDynamics is a tool for individuals and teams who believe that teamwork should be intentional and rewarding.

We spend just as much time today with our coworkers as we do with our loved ones. We have tools to manage our relationships with partners: love languages, compatibility tests, therapy, and more.

But when it comes to relationships with our professional teams, we're flying blind. It doesn't have to be that way.

TeamDynamics is a team building tool to help the modern team get more done and have more fun while doing it. Quantify your team's behaviors. Describe them with a shared language. Improve your team's performance with tailored recommendations.

"Rapidly scaling, our team needed structure to get team members up to speed. TeamDynamics is a staple in our onboarding process. It helps new employees understand their team culture from day 1, getting them started on the right foot.”

"When I switched teams, I felt like I lost my instincts for working with my colleagues: things that were easy to coordinate before seemed to take forever, and I couldn't get my points across. TeamDynamics helped me figure out what I needed to change to get my groove back."

"Used to use MBTI in consulting. Joined a startup, needed something fresher. Found TeamDynamics. We use it for every new hire. It helps us understand our team. Keeps us grounded. Shows us how to improve."

Discover your team's personality.

Learn how your team works. Unlock your team's potential. Get your TeamDynamics today.

Do you know your team's personality? 🤔

TeamDynamics describes how your team works together and how you fit in. We'll send you a sample so you can check it out for yourself!

Home — Essay Samples — Literature — Feed — The Role of Peer Feedback in Writing Improvement

The Role of Peer Feedback in Writing Improvement

• Categories: Feed

About this sample

Words: 781 |

Published: Sep 20, 2018

Words: 781 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

• Altstaedter, L. L. (2016). Investigating the impact of peer feedback in a foreign language writing. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1-15.
• Berggren, J. (2014). Learning from giving feedback: a study of secondary-level students. ELT Journal, 1-13.
• Li, L., & Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A. L. (2010). Assessor or Assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 525-536.
• Min, H. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118-141.
• Rahimi, M. (2013). Is training student reviewers worth its while? A study of how training influences the quality of students’ feedback and writing. Language Teaching Research, 17, 67 89.
• Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59/1.
• Yang, Y. (2015). Transforming and constructing academic knowledge through online peer feedback in summary writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 683-702.
• Zhao, H. (2010). Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: A comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assessing Writing, 15, 3-17.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Literature

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 944 words

1.5 pages / 780 words

2 pages / 1012 words

3 pages / 1428 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Feed

Feed by M.T. Anderson is a novel about tennagers living a future version of America. In this future society the majority of the population depends on “the feed,” a network that is implanted into their heads that is necessary to [...]

In the futuristic world depicted in Feed by M.T. Anderson, nobody thinks for themselves – the feed thinks for them. Everyone is dependent on the feed and bored with their everyday lives. Because of this, the character Violet [...]

A feedback loop is a biological occurrence wherein the output of a system amplifies the system (positive feedback) or inhibits the system (negative feedback). Living organisms are able to maintain homeostasis through these [...]

At first glance, the feed seems like a miraculous invention. It allows people to communicate effortlessly, instantly translating languages, and providing them with a constant stream of personalized content. However, as the story [...]

Breastfeeding in connection with intelligence has long been a study of scientists in psychological professions in the years succeeding a 1929 study on the subject. Argumentation has gone back and forth, with some arguing that [...]

Ernest Hemingway called his novel A Farewell to Arms his “Romeo and Juliet.” The most obvious similarity between these works is their star-crossed lovers, as noted by critic Carlos Baker; another is that the deaths of both [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

College students with adhd: a selective review of qualitative studies.

1. Introduction

1.1. qualitative research methods, 1.2. the present study, 2. materials and methods, 2.1. search strategy, 2.2. study selection, 2.3. variable identification, 3.1. quantitative results, 3.2. qualitative results, 3.2.1. the college experience of students with adhd, 3.2.2. interventions, 3.2.3. cognitive and academic functioning, 3.2.4. self-functioning, 4. discussion, 5. conclusions, author contributions, conflicts of interest, appendix a. summaries of included studies, appendix a.1. the college experience of students with adhd, appendix a.1.1. college transitions, appendix a.1.2. adhd as an identity, appendix a.1.3. race, appendix a.1.4. community college, appendix a.2. interventions, appendix a.2.1. coaching, appendix a.2.2. strategies, appendix a.2.3. medication, appendix a.3. cognitive and academic functioning, appendix a.4. self-functioning.

• Chung, W.; Jiang, S.F.; Paksarian, D.; Nikolaidis, A.; Castellanos, F.X.; Merikangas, K.R.; Milham, M.P. Trends in the prevalence and incidence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder among adults and children of different racial and ethnic groups. JAMA Netw. Open 2009 , 2 , e1914344. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Digest of Education Statistics. Available online: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_311.10.asp (accessed on 4 April 2024).
• Characteristics and Outcomes of Undergraduates with Disabilities. Available online: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018432.pdf (accessed on 4 April 2024).
• DuPaul, G.J.; Gormley, M.J.; Anastopoulos, A.D.; Weyandt, L.L.; Labban, J.; Sass, A.J.; Postler, K.B. Academic trajectories of college students with and without ADHD: Predictors of four-year outcomes. J. Clin. Child. Adolesc. Psychol. 2021 , 50 , 828–843. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• O’Rourke, S.R.; Bray, A.C.; Anastopoulos, A.D. Anxiety symptoms and disorders in college students with ADHD. J. Atten. Disord. 2020 , 24 , 1764–1774. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Anastopoulos, A.D.; Langberg, J.M.; Eddy, L.D.; Silvia, P.J.; Labban, J.D. A randomized controlled trial examining CBT for college students with ADHD. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 2021 , 89 , 21–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Francis, A.R.; Weyandt, L.L.; Anastopoulos, A.D.; DuPaul, G.J.; Shepard, E. Outcomes and predictors of stimulant misuse in college students with and without ADHD. J. Atten. Disord. 2022 , 26 , 779–793. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• APA Dictionary of Psychology. Available online: https://dictionary.apa.org/qualitative-research (accessed on 15 January 2024).
• Sabnis, S.V.; Newman, D.S.; Whitford, D.; Mossing, K. Publication and characteristics of qualitative research in School Psychology journals between 2006 and 2021. Sch. Psychol. 2023 , 38 , 330–336. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Drew, C.J.; Hardman, M.L.; Hosp, J.L. Designing and Conducting Research in Education ; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schonfeld, I.S.; Mazzola, J.J. Strengths limitations of qualitative approaches to research in occupational health psychology. In Research Methods in Occupational Health Psychology: State of the Art in Measurement, Design, and Data Analysis ; Tetrick, L., Sinclair, R., Wang, M., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2012; pp. 268–289. [ Google Scholar ]
• Camic, P.M. Qualitative Inquiry in Psychological Research, Expanding Perspectives in Methodology and Design , 2nd ed.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2021; pp. 3–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leko, M.M.; Cook, B.G.; Cook, L. Qualitative methods in special education research. Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract. 2021 , 36 , 278–286. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Moher, D. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021 , 372 , 71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Madaus, J.W.; Gelbar, N.; Dukes, L.L., III; Lalor, A.R.; Lombardi, A.; Kowitt, J.; Faggella-Luby, M.N. Literature on postsecondary disability services: A call for research guidelines. J. Divers. High. Educ. 2018 , 11 , 133ff. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Madaus, J.W.; Dukes, L.L., III; Lalor, A.R.; Aquino, K.; Faggella-Luby, M.; Newman, L.A.; Wessel, R.D. Research Guidelines for Higher Education and Disability. J. Postsecond. Educ. Disabil. 2020 , 33 , 319–338. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewandowski, L.J.; Lovett, B.J.; Codding, R.S.; Gordon, M. Symptoms of ADHD and academic concerns in college students with and without ADHD diagnoses. J. Atten. Disord. 2008 , 12 , 156–161. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Suhr, J.A.; Johnson, E.E. First do no harm: Ethical issues in pathologizing normal variations in behavior and functioning. Psychol. Inj. Law 2022 , 15 , 253–267. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nelson, J.M.; Lovett, B.J. Assessing ADHD in college students: Integrating multiple evidence sources with symptom and performance validity data. Psychol. Assess. 2019 , 31 , 793–804. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gascon, A.; Gamache, D.; St-Laurent, D.; Stipanicic, A. Do we over-diagnose ADHD in North America? A critical review and clinical recommendations. J. Clin. Psychol. 2022 , 78 , 2363–2380. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Meaux, J.B.; Green, A.; Broussard, L. ADHD in the college student: A block in the road. J. Psychiatr. Ment. Health Nurs. 2009 , 16 , 248–256. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Morgan, K. The College Transition Experience of Students with ADHD. Ph.D. Thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• McCall, Z.A. The transition experiences, activities, and supports of four college students with disabilities. Career Dev. 2015 , 38 , 162–172. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Denson, T.C. The Transitioning Experiences of First-Year Students with ADHD into College: A Case Study. Ph.D. Thesis, Northcentral University, Phoenix, AZ, USA, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stevens, A.E. Perspectives from College Students with ADHD: A Qualitative Examination of Parental Support and the Parent-Child Relationship in the Transition to College. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mullins, L.; Preyde, M. The lived experience of students with an invisible disability at a Canadian university. Disabil. Soc. 2013 , 28 , 147–160. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Johnston, V. University Students Diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Hermeneutical Phenomenological Study of Challenges and Successes. Ph.D. Thesis, Liberty University, Richmond, VA, USA, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lux, S.J. The Lived Experiences of College Students with a Learning Disability and/or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Ph.D. Thesis, Iowa State University, Des Moines, IA, USA, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alabdulwahab, R. Postsecondary Education for International Undergraduate Students with Learning Disabilities in the United States. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Northern Colorado, Greely, CO, USA, 20 December 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bolourian, Y.; Zeedyk, S.M.; Blacher, J. Autism and the university experience: Narratives from students with neurodevelopmental disorders. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2018 , 48 , 3330–3343. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bonomi, A.; Nichols, E.; Kammes, R.; Green, T. Sexual violence and intimate partner violence in college women with a mental health and/or behavior disability. J. Women’s Health 2018 , 27 , 359–368. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pirozzi, M. The Perception of the College Experience for Students with ADHD. In Proceedings of the IHSES 2022—International Conference on Humanities, Social and Education Sciences, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 21–24 April 2022 ; Noroozi, O., Sahin, I., Eds.; ISTES Organization: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2022; pp. 18–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Poe, M.A. A Phenomenological Study of the Educational Learning Experiences of African American College Students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Ph.D. Thesis, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mills, M.C. The Learning Experiences in a College Environment for African American Students Diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): A Qualitative Case Study. Ph.D. Thesis, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Young, E.W.D.M. Understanding the Psycho-Social and Cultural Factors that Influence the Experience of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Chinese American college students: A Systems Approach. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coon, H.L. Community College Students with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (AD/HD): A Student Perspective. Ph.D. Thesis, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
• Flowers, L. Navigating and Accessing Higher Education: The Experiences of Community College Students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reaser, A.L. ADHD Coaching and College Students. Ph.D. Thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA, 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Parker, D.R.; Boutelle, K. Executive function coaching for college students with learning disabilities and ADHD: A new approach for fostering self-determination. Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract. 2009 , 24 , 204–215. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Prevatt, F.; Smith, S.M.; Diers, S.; Marshall, D.; Coleman, J.; Valler, E.; Miller, N. ADHD coaching with college students: Exploring the processes involved in motivation and goal completion. J. Coll. Stud. Psychother. 2017 , 31 , 93–111. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kreider, C.M.; Medina, S.; Koedam, H.M. (Dis)ability-informed mentors support occupational performance for college students with learning disabilities and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders through problem-solving and a focus on strengths. Br. J. Occup. Ther. 2021 , 84 , 263–270. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Melara, C.A. Factors Influencing the Academic Persistence of College Students with ADHD. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bartlett, R.; Rowe, T.S.; Shattell, M.M. Perspectives of college students on their childhood ADHD. MCN Am. J. Matern. Child Nurs. 2010 , 35 , 226–231. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Davis-Berman, J.L.; Pestello, F.G. Medicating for ADD/ADHD: Personal and social issues. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict. 2010 , 8 , 482–492. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Meaux, J.B.; Hester, C.; Smith, B.; Shoptaw, A. Stimulant medications: A trade-off? J. Spec. Ped. Nurs. 2006 , 11 , 214–226. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Loe, M.; Cuttino, L. Grappling with the medicated self: The case of ADHD college students. Symb. Interact. 2008 , 31 , 303–323. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Judd, A.D. Function, Visualization, and Mathematical Thinking for College Students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Northern Colorado, Denver, CO, USA, 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee, K.S.; Osborne, R.E.; Carpenter, D.N. Testing accommodations for university students with AD/HD: Computerized vs. paper-pencil/regular vs. extended time. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2010 , 42 , 443–458. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hood, M.R. A Phenomenological Study: How College Students with ADHD are Affected by Fragmentation and Dissassociation. Ph.D. Thesis, Concordia University, Portland, OR, USA, 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nash-Luckenbach, D. Exploring Learning Style Preferences of College Age Students with Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD). Ph.D. Thesis, Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ, USA, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodriguez, E. Time, Schedules, and the College Student with ADHD. Ph.D. Thesis, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fox, K.A., Jr. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Perceived Impact on College Students’ Motivation to Learn. Ph.D. Thesis, Grand Canyon University, Phoenix, AZ, USA, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kreider, C.M.; Luna, C.; Lan, M.F.; Wu, C.T. Disability advocacy messaging and conceptual links to underlying disability identity development among college students with learning disabilities and attention disorders. Disabil. Health J. 2020 , 13 , 100827. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Waite, R.; Tran, M. Explanatory models and help-seeking behavior for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder among a cohort of postsecondary students. Arch. Psychiat. Nurs. 2010 , 24 , 247–259. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Driggers, J.A.G. Resiliency in Undergraduate College Students Diagnosed with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Ph.D. Thesis, Walden University, Saint Paul, MN, USA, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roper, L.G. Self-Advocacy Among College Students with Learning Disabilities and/or Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorders. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Webb, K. Self-Efficacy in College Students with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology, Boston, MA, USA, 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tse, M. Social Skills and Self-Esteem of College Students with ADHD. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haig, J.D. The Role of Self-Regulation Strategies on Two- and Four-Year College Students with ADHD. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Cohen, S.L.; Shavel, K.; Lovett, B.J. College Students with ADHD: A Selective Review of Qualitative Studies. Disabilities 2024 , 4 , 658-677. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities4030041

Cohen SL, Shavel K, Lovett BJ. College Students with ADHD: A Selective Review of Qualitative Studies. Disabilities . 2024; 4(3):658-677. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities4030041

Cohen, Shira L., Katie Shavel, and Benjamin J. Lovett. 2024. "College Students with ADHD: A Selective Review of Qualitative Studies" Disabilities 4, no. 3: 658-677. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities4030041

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples

What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples

Published on 6 May 2022 by Tegan George . Revised on 2 September 2022.

Peer review, sometimes referred to as refereeing , is the process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Using strict criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decides whether to accept each submission for publication.

Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to the stringent process they go through before publication.

There are various types of peer review. The main difference between them is to what extent the authors, reviewers, and editors know each other’s identities. The most common types are:

• Single-blind review
• Double-blind review
• Triple-blind review

Collaborative review

Open review.

Relatedly, peer assessment is a process where your peers provide you with feedback on something you’ve written, based on a set of criteria or benchmarks from an instructor. They then give constructive feedback, compliments, or guidance to help you improve your draft.

Table of contents

What is the purpose of peer review, types of peer review, the peer review process, providing feedback to your peers, peer review example, advantages of peer review, criticisms of peer review, frequently asked questions about peer review.

Many academic fields use peer review, largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the manuscript. For this reason, academic journals are among the most credible sources you can refer to.

However, peer review is also common in non-academic settings. The United Nations, the European Union, and many individual nations use peer review to evaluate grant applications. It is also widely used in medical and health-related fields as a teaching or quality-of-care measure.

Peer assessment is often used in the classroom as a pedagogical tool. Both receiving feedback and providing it are thought to enhance the learning process, helping students think critically and collaboratively.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Depending on the journal, there are several types of peer review.

Single-blind peer review

The most common type of peer review is single-blind (or single anonymised) review . Here, the names of the reviewers are not known by the author.

While this gives the reviewers the ability to give feedback without the possibility of interference from the author, there has been substantial criticism of this method in the last few years. Many argue that single-blind reviewing can lead to poaching or intellectual theft or that anonymised comments cause reviewers to be too harsh.

Double-blind peer review

In double-blind (or double anonymised) review , both the author and the reviewers are anonymous.

Arguments for double-blind review highlight that this mitigates any risk of prejudice on the side of the reviewer, while protecting the nature of the process. In theory, it also leads to manuscripts being published on merit rather than on the reputation of the author.

Triple-blind peer review

While triple-blind (or triple anonymised) review – where the identities of the author, reviewers, and editors are all anonymised – does exist, it is difficult to carry out in practice.

Proponents of adopting triple-blind review for journal submissions argue that it minimises potential conflicts of interest and biases. However, ensuring anonymity is logistically challenging, and current editing software is not always able to fully anonymise everyone involved in the process.

In collaborative review , authors and reviewers interact with each other directly throughout the process. However, the identity of the reviewer is not known to the author. This gives all parties the opportunity to resolve any inconsistencies or contradictions in real time, and provides them a rich forum for discussion. It can mitigate the need for multiple rounds of editing and minimise back-and-forth.

Collaborative review can be time- and resource-intensive for the journal, however. For these collaborations to occur, there has to be a set system in place, often a technological platform, with staff monitoring and fixing any bugs or glitches.

Lastly, in open review , all parties know each other’s identities throughout the process. Often, open review can also include feedback from a larger audience, such as an online forum, or reviewer feedback included as part of the final published product.

While many argue that greater transparency prevents plagiarism or unnecessary harshness, there is also concern about the quality of future scholarship if reviewers feel they have to censor their comments.

In general, the peer review process includes the following steps:

• First, the author submits the manuscript to the editor.
• Reject the manuscript and send it back to the author, or
• Send it onward to the selected peer reviewer(s)
• Next, the peer review process occurs. The reviewer provides feedback, addressing any major or minor issues with the manuscript, and gives their advice regarding what edits should be made.
• Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits and resubmit it to the editor for publication.

In an effort to be transparent, many journals are now disclosing who reviewed each article in the published product. There are also increasing opportunities for collaboration and feedback, with some journals allowing open communication between reviewers and authors.

It can seem daunting at first to conduct a peer review or peer assessment. If you’re not sure where to start, there are several best practices you can use.

Summarise the argument in your own words

Summarising the main argument helps the author see how their argument is interpreted by readers, and gives you a jumping-off point for providing feedback. If you’re having trouble doing this, it’s a sign that the argument needs to be clearer, more concise, or worded differently.

If the author sees that you’ve interpreted their argument differently than they intended, they have an opportunity to address any misunderstandings when they get the manuscript back.

Separate your feedback into major and minor issues

It can be challenging to keep feedback organised. One strategy is to start out with any major issues and then flow into the more minor points. It’s often helpful to keep your feedback in a numbered list, so the author has concrete points to refer back to.

Major issues typically consist of any problems with the style, flow, or key points of the manuscript. Minor issues include spelling errors, citation errors, or other smaller, easy-to-apply feedback.

The best feedback you can provide is anything that helps them strengthen their argument or resolve major stylistic issues.

Give the type of feedback that you would like to receive

No one likes being criticised, and it can be difficult to give honest feedback without sounding overly harsh or critical. One strategy you can use here is the ‘compliment sandwich’, where you ‘sandwich’ your constructive criticism between two compliments.

Be sure you are giving concrete, actionable feedback that will help the author submit a successful final draft. While you shouldn’t tell them exactly what they should do, your feedback should help them resolve any issues they may have overlooked.

As a rule of thumb, your feedback should be:

• Easy to understand
• Constructive

Below is a brief annotated research example. You can view examples of peer feedback by hovering over the highlighted sections.

Influence of phone use on sleep

Studies show that teens from the US are getting less sleep than they were a decade ago (Johnson, 2019) . On average, teens only slept for 6 hours a night in 2021, compared to 8 hours a night in 2011. Johnson mentions several potential causes, such as increased anxiety, changed diets, and increased phone use.

The current study focuses on the effect phone use before bedtime has on the number of hours of sleep teens are getting.

For this study, a sample of 300 teens was recruited using social media, such as Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. The first week, all teens were allowed to use their phone the way they normally would, in order to obtain a baseline.

The sample was then divided into 3 groups:

• Group 1 was not allowed to use their phone before bedtime.
• Group 2 used their phone for 1 hour before bedtime.
• Group 3 used their phone for 3 hours before bedtime.

All participants were asked to go to sleep around 10 p.m. to control for variation in bedtime . In the morning, their Fitbit showed the number of hours they’d slept. They kept track of these numbers themselves for 1 week.

Two independent t tests were used in order to compare Group 1 and Group 2, and Group 1 and Group 3. The first t test showed no significant difference ( p > .05) between the number of hours for Group 1 ( M = 7.8, SD = 0.6) and Group 2 ( M = 7.0, SD = 0.8). The second t test showed a significant difference ( p < .01) between the average difference for Group 1 ( M = 7.8, SD = 0.6) and Group 3 ( M = 6.1, SD = 1.5).

This shows that teens sleep fewer hours a night if they use their phone for over an hour before bedtime, compared to teens who use their phone for 0 to 1 hours.

Peer review is an established and hallowed process in academia, dating back hundreds of years. It provides various fields of study with metrics, expectations, and guidance to ensure published work is consistent with predetermined standards.

• Protects the quality of published research

Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. Any content that raises red flags for reviewers can be closely examined in the review stage, preventing plagiarised or duplicated research from being published.

• Gives you access to feedback from experts in your field

Peer review represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field and to improve your writing through their feedback and guidance. Experts with knowledge about your subject matter can give you feedback on both style and content, and they may also suggest avenues for further research that you hadn’t yet considered.

• Helps you identify any weaknesses in your argument

Peer review acts as a first defence, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process. This way, you’ll end up with a more robust, more cohesive article.

While peer review is a widely accepted metric for credibility, it’s not without its drawbacks.

• Reviewer bias

The more transparent double-blind system is not yet very common, which can lead to bias in reviewing. A common criticism is that an excellent paper by a new researcher may be declined, while an objectively lower-quality submission by an established researcher would be accepted.

• Delays in publication

The thoroughness of the peer review process can lead to significant delays in publishing time. Research that was current at the time of submission may not be as current by the time it’s published.

• Risk of human error

By its very nature, peer review carries a risk of human error. In particular, falsification often cannot be detected, given that reviewers would have to replicate entire experiments to ensure the validity of results.

Peer review is a process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Utilising rigorous criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decide whether to accept each submission for publication.

For this reason, academic journals are often considered among the most credible sources you can use in a research project – provided that the journal itself is trustworthy and well regarded.

Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. It also represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field.

It acts as a first defence, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process.

Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to this stringent process they go through before publication.

In general, the peer review process follows the following steps:

• Reject the manuscript and send it back to author, or
• Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits, and resubmit it to the editor for publication.

Many academic fields use peer review , largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the published manuscript.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

George, T. (2022, September 02). What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 9 September 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/peer-reviews/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, what is a double-blind study | introduction & examples, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples, data cleaning | a guide with examples & steps.

• Open access
• Published: 11 September 2024

Addressing the credibility crisis in Mendelian randomization

• Stephen Burgess 1 , 2 ,
• Benjamin Woolf 1 , 3 , 4 ,
• Amy M. Mason 2 , 5 ,
• Mika Ala-Korpela 6 , 7 &
• Dipender Gill 8 , 9  

BMC Medicine volume  22 , Article number:  374 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

430 Accesses

19 Altmetric

Metrics details

Genome-wide association studies have enabled Mendelian randomization analyses to be performed at an industrial scale. Two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization analyses can be performed using publicly available data by anyone who has access to the internet. While this has led to many insightful papers, it has also fuelled an explosion of poor-quality Mendelian randomization publications, which threatens to undermine the credibility of the whole approach.

We detail five pitfalls in conducting a reliable Mendelian randomization investigation: (1) inappropriate research question, (2) inappropriate choice of variants as instruments, (3) insufficient interrogation of findings, (4) inappropriate interpretation of findings, and (5) lack of engagement with previous work. We have provided a brief checklist of key points to consider when performing a Mendelian randomization investigation; this does not replace previous guidance, but highlights critical analysis choices. Journal editors should be able to identify many low-quality submissions and reject papers without requiring peer review. Peer reviewers should focus initially on key indicators of validity; if a paper does not satisfy these, then the paper may be meaningless even if it is technically flawless.

Conclusions

Performing an informative Mendelian randomization investigation requires critical thought and collaboration between different specialties and fields of research.

Peer Review reports

Mendelian randomization is an epidemiological technique that exploits the properties of genetic variants to address causal questions about the potential effect of an exposure on an outcome [ 1 , 2 ]. Mendel’s laws of heritability mean that, conditional on parental genotype, genetic variants should only be associated with traits that they influence [ 3 , 4 ]. Given a well-mixed population, the same property should hold at the population level [ 5 ]. Empirical investigations have shown that genetic associations with unrelated traits estimated in population-based cohorts are no stronger than would be expected due to chance alone [ 6 , 7 ]. This suggests a generic strategy for testing the causal effect of any exposure on any outcome by the following steps:

Find genetic variants that are predictors of the exposure

Test whether these genetic variants associate with the outcome

The simplicity and universality of the approach is appealing [ 8 ]. Analogously to a randomized trial, inferences are made not by application of clever statistical methodology, but by exploiting random variation [ 9 , 10 ]—although in the case of Mendelian randomization, this is naturally-occurring randomization rather than random allocation by a trialist [ 11 ]. However, such a simple recipe cannot provide reliable causal inferences without thoughtful application.

The Mendelian randomization approach relies on the gene–environment equivalence principle [ 12 ]. This states that selected genetic variants influence an environmental (that is non-genetic) exposure equivalently to a proposed intervention that changes the population distribution of the exposure. In practice, there are often differences between the effect of a genetic variant and a proposed intervention in terms of mechanism, magnitude, timing, and duration that imply downstream consequences are not exactly equivalent [ 13 , 14 ]. The principle can be restated to require that genetic associations are informative about the presence, direction, and (to a more limited extent) the size of the effect on the outcome resulting from an intervention in the exposure.

The availability of data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) has enabled Mendelian randomization analyses to be performed at an industrial scale [ 15 , 16 ]. In particular, it has enabled two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization investigations [ 17 ]: “two-sample” indicates that genetic associations with the putative exposure and outcome come from different datasets; “summary data” indicates that analyses are performed using genetic association estimates—beta-coefficients and standard errors representing associations of the respective variants with the exposure and outcome—rather than individual-level data [ 18 , 19 ]. Such association data have been released for many large consortia and biobanks [ 20 , 21 ]. Anyone with access to the internet can download genetic associations with risk factors and disease outcomes and use these to implement Mendelian randomization methods [ 22 ]. Indeed, such applications of Mendelian randomization have great advantages: they are able to use large datasets published by GWAS consortia, and analyses can be made fully transparent and replicable.

However, particularly in the age of artificial intelligence, such analyses are arguably too accessible. Web-based tools have been created that simplify the task of the analyst to simply choosing the exposure and outcome—the automated analysis is performed at the touch of a button [ 23 ]. Mendelian randomization has become an easy target for researchers who are incentivized to publish as often as they can, as well as to predatory journals which are willing to publish such articles. While the two-sample summary data approach has led to many insightful papers, it has also fuelled an explosion of poor-quality Mendelian randomization publications, which threatens to overwhelm the capacity of qualified reviewers and undermine the credibility of the whole approach.

The guidance in this article is written to help those who want to write meaningful Mendelian randomization papers, as well as to journal editors and reviewers seeking to triage and identify low-quality submissions. There is already plentiful guidance on performing and reporting Mendelian randomization investigations [ 24 ], including the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology using Mendelian Randomization (STROBE-MR) guidelines [ 25 ]; we would encourage journals to insist that authors complete the checklist based on these guidelines at initial submission. This is important to ensure analyses are performed accurately and to avoid errors, such as mistakes in allele harmonization [ 26 ]. However, a Mendelian randomization investigation may be perfectly written and follow these guidelines to the letter—and yet the whole study may be completely useless.

We focus here on two-sample Mendelian randomization analyses using established methods for the analysis of summarized data. Advanced methods, such as non-linear analyses [ 27 ], cross-generational analyses [ 28 ], and time-varying analyses [ 29 ], require additional assumptions and detailed considerations that could potentially lead to biased estimates if violated [ 30 , 31 , 32 ]. Such methods are outside the scope of this paper. However, the considerations discussed here about instrument selection, instrument validity, and interpretation are foundational, and also apply to such applications.

We consider five common pitfalls in conducting a reliable Mendelian randomization investigation: (1) inappropriate research question, (2) inappropriate choice of variants as instruments, (3) insufficient interrogation of findings, (4) inappropriate interpretation of findings, and (5) lack of engagement with previous literature. We present a short list of relevant questions relating to these points in Fig.  1 for authors to consider. While not as comprehensive as the STROBE-MR guidelines, it is more succinct and focuses on the key critical judgements that are required to assess the reliability of an investigation. It should be particularly valuable not just to authors, but also to reviewers and editors, and indeed, to eventual readers wanting to evaluate the quality of evidence provided by a Mendelian randomization publication.

Key considerations when assessing the credibility of a Mendelian randomization investigation

Inappropriate research question

The instrumental variable assumptions [ 33 ] require that any genetic variant used in a Mendelian randomization investigation as an instrument must:

Be associated with the exposure (relevance)

Not be associated with the outcome via a confounding pathway (exchangeability)

Have no direct effect on the outcome, only potentially an indirect effect via the exposure (exclusion restriction) [ 34 ]

Only the first of these assumptions can be verified based on data. The other two assumptions cannot be formally tested and must be justified either on the basis of scientific understanding, or empirically supported based on the application of statistical methods [ 24 ].

These assumptions require the genetic variants to be specific in how they affect the exposure—there cannot be pleiotropic associations with variables on alternative causal pathways to the outcome. Associations with variables on the causal pathway from the genetic variants to the outcome via the exposure (sometimes called “vertical pleiotropy”) are allowed; associations with variables on alternative causal pathways (sometimes called “horizontal pleiotropy”) are not [ 35 ] (Fig.  2 ).

Genetic associations with an exposure variable that is downstream of a mediating biomarker (diagrams A and B), or has a downstream effect on either a mediating biomarker (diagram C) or a non-causal biomarker (diagram D). In case A, the only causal pathway from the genetic variants to the outcome passes via the exposure; hence, this is an example of “vertical pleiotropy”, and the genetic variants are valid instruments. In case B, there is a causal pathway from the genetic variants to the outcome that does not pass via the exposure; hence, this is an example of “horizontal pleiotropy”, and the genetic variants are not valid instruments. In cases C and D (which also represent “vertical pleiotropy”), Mendelian randomization analyses should be conceptualized in terms of the exposure (the putative causal trait), even if measured genetic associations are expressed in terms of the biomarker. Diagram D is likely to represent the situation between genetic variants in the IL6R gene region, interleukin 6 signalling (exposure), and C-reactive protein (non-causal biomarker). C-reactive protein is likely to be a non-causal biomarker when considering the effect of interleukin 6 receptor inhibition on coronary heart disease [ 36 ]

For some exposures, it is implausible that there are genetic variants that influence the exposure in a way that meets these requirements. A paradigmatic example of such an exposure is “use of chopsticks”—if a researcher found genetic predictors of chopstick use in a Western population, the likely explanation would be that the variants reflect demographic or socioeconomic status, rather than a biological mechanism that affects cutlery choice [ 37 ]. Such variants would be invalid instrumental variables: first, they would be subject to population stratification, and second, even if population stratification could be addressed, they would be associated with other traits and behaviours that are more common in chopstick users. As such, a Mendelian randomization study supposedly finding evidence of an effect of chopsticks use would have to show that this effect is not attributable to the many other social and cultural factors that likely differ between the genetically defined population groups.

Another implausible exposure for use in Mendelian randomization is pollution levels [ 38 ]. Again, it is implausible that there are particular genetic variants that affect exposure to air pollution. If genetic predictors of air pollution are found, it is likely that these are markers of social status rather than representing intrinsic biological mechanisms. In some large datasets, such as UK Biobank, air pollution is not measured at an individual level, but inferred based on home address [ 39 ]. This reinforces the concern that such an analysis is actually evaluating social status, not air pollution in any specific way. Another category of implausible exposures for Mendelian randomization is gut microbiota [ 40 ]. It is implausible that there are particular genetic variants that have specific effects on individual gut microbiome species. While some genetic predictors of gut microbiota have been found, they are located in highly pleiotropic gene regions, such as the ABO gene region [ 41 ]. Just because a GWAS has found genetic predictors of a trait does not imply that the trait is an appropriate exposure for a Mendelian randomization investigation, nor that the genetic predictors represent valid genetic instruments.

If an exposure is externally or environmentally determined, or variation in the exposure is influenced purely by social and cultural factors rather than intrinsic biological mechanisms, then it is unlikely that effects of the exposure can be reliably interrogated in a Mendelian randomization design. Such traits are more likely to be subject to bias from population stratification, non-random mating patterns, and dynastic effects (that is inter-generational effects, such as when the parental genotype directly influences the offspring exposure or outcome) [ 42 ].

A counter-example to this is alcohol consumption. While alcohol consumption is partially determined by personal and environmental factors, there are biological mechanisms influencing the metabolism of alcohol that affect consumption levels, as well as exposure to alcohol in the bloodstream. Genetic variants in key regulators of these mechanisms are potential instruments for understanding the downstream effects of alcohol consumption [ 43 ]. However, care is still required to appropriately perform and interpret such analyses; we follow up this example in further sections.

Researchers should be aware that not all causal questions can appropriately be addressed in a Mendelian randomization paradigm. Journal editors and reviewers should use their judgement to rapidly decide whether a question can plausibly be addressed by Mendelian randomization based on the abstract (or even the title) alone: is it plausible that there exist genetic variants such that the gene–environment equivalence principle holds? That is, are there likely to be genetic variants that affect the exposure in a way equivalent to the (possibly hypothetical) intervention implied by the causal question under investigation? If this is unlikely, then the investigation, even if perfectly implemented and reported, does not provide reliable evidence to address the causal question of interest.

Inappropriate choice of variants as instruments

The instrumental variable assumptions require that any causal pathway from the genetic variants to the outcome passes via the exposure under investigation. This is more plausible if the genetic variants are located in a gene region with known functional or biological relevance to the exposure [ 44 , 45 , 46 ]. It is less plausible for exposures that the genetic variants influence indirectly via complex causal pathways, such as educational attainment. For example, genetic variants in the UGT1A1 gene region that encodes an enzyme regulating the synthesis of bilirubin are more plausible instruments than variants in gene regions that are not functionally related to bilirubin, or whose function is unknown [ 47 ]. Genetic variants in the ALDH2 and ADH1B gene regions are known to relate to alcohol metabolism, and hence are plausible instruments to investigate the effect of alcohol consumption [ 48 ]. If gene regions with biological relevance to the exposure are not known, Mendelian randomization can provide some evidence on the causal relevance of the exposure, but additional caution is required [ 49 ].

For a given gene region, genetic variants should be chosen based on their biological relation to the causal risk factor of interest, as far as is possible. This includes proximity to the relevant gene and functional effects on regulation of the gene or its downstream protein. For example, when investigating the effect of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) on risk of Alzheimer’s disease, use of variants in the ACE gene region predicting tissue-specific gene and protein expression likely increases their plausibility as valid instruments for pharmacological perturbation of ACE at the relevant biological site [ 50 ]. In some cases, the same variant may be the lead signal for circulating protein levels, gene expression in the most relevant tissue, and levels of a downstream risk factor. In other cases, these approaches may identify different variants [ 51 ]. If these differ, careful consideration is needed to select the variant(s) that best mimic the intervention of interest.

Biological mechanisms affecting many exposures are not known. In such cases, genetic variants used as instruments may be selected solely based on their statistical association with the exposure. Such analyses are often still valuable, in that they provide a source of evidence supporting or refuting a causal effect of the exposure on the outcome. The strength of evidence provided depends on our confidence in the validity of the genetic variants as instruments. Testing genetic associations with potential confounders can provide empirical evidence supporting the validity of the variants as instruments, as can other statistical approaches, such as the application of pleiotropy-robust methods [ 52 ].

Researchers should prioritize investigating exposures using variants in gene regions that are biologically related to the exposure where possible. Journal editors and reviewers should look for a justification as to why the genetic variants in a given analysis were chosen. If this is absent, or if genetic variants are purely chosen on statistical grounds, then findings will generally be less authoritative and require a greater degree of statistical assessment.

Insufficient interrogation of findings

While the exact analysis plan will depend on the specifics of the question under investigation, availability of valid instruments, data quality, and so forth, one recommended generic strategy for conducting Mendelian randomization analyses is as follows. First, if there are biologically informed candidate instruments, the primary analysis should be based on these variants. Second, if there are no biologically informed candidate instruments, an initial liberal analysis based on a wide range of variants is recommended. Finally, results should be interrogated further to investigate robustness to a variety of factors [ 24 ]. A null finding in a liberal analysis that includes potentially pleiotropic variants is likely to reflect a true null relationship; it is more likely that bias will lead to a false positive finding than a false negative finding [ 53 ]. However, false negative results can be just as harmful to science. Absence of evidence does not always mean evidence of absence, particularly if the analysis is underpowered, unspecific, or poorly designed.

There are many approaches for the interrogation of findings (see reference [ 24 ] for more details), including examining genetic associations with potentially pleiotropic variables [ 54 ], testing against positive and/or negative controls [ 55 ], colocalization (particularly when the finding is based on a single gene region) [ 56 ], use of pleiotropy-robust methods (particularly when the finding is based on variants from several gene regions) [ 52 ], investigation in subgroups of the population [ 57 ] (although noting such stratification can lead to collider bias [ 58 ]), investigation with a subset of variants, and multivariable Mendelian randomization [ 59 ]. No single sensitivity analysis approach is foolproof [ 60 ], and all approaches make their own assumptions. A causal effect may be present even if one or more approach does not provide supportive evidence of a causal effect (or equally, a causal effect may be absent even if one or more approach supports a causal effect). In many cases, the evidence will be equivocal; there may be evidence supporting a causal effect, but this evidence may not be fully consistent across all analyses. If there is inconsistent evidence, then it is important that results are reported clearly, without undue emphasis on significant findings. Similarly, if multiple hypotheses are tested by the investigators, this should be accounted for when interpreting findings.

As an example, the robustness of Mendelian randomization analyses with alcohol as an exposure has been tested in several ways. Analyses in East Asian populations have typically used variants in the ALDH2 and ADH1B gene regions as instruments [ 61 ]. These investigations have exploited a further natural experiment by conducting analyses separately for men and women. Genetic associations with disease outcomes would not be expected in East Asian women as their alcohol consumption levels are much lower than those of men. East Asian women represents a negative control population, and null associations in women but positive associations with men have been observed for oesophageal cancer [ 62 ] and blood pressure [ 63 ]. In European-descent populations, similar findings have been observed using a variant in the ADH1B gene region only and using a wider range of genetic predictors of alcohol consumption [ 64 ]. Consistent results for many outcomes have been observed across a range of robust methods, including MR-Egger, weighted median, and MR-PRESSO methods [ 65 ]. Multivariable analyses have also been conducted adjusting for smoking behaviour, as genetic predictors of alcohol may have pleiotropic effects on smoking intensity [ 66 ].

Researchers should perform a range of approaches to investigate the robustness of findings. The reported level of confidence in conclusions should be dependent on the consistency of these results. Journal editors and reviewers should be suspicious of selective reporting of significant findings, particularly when approaches to assess the validity of findings have either not been reported, or indicate lack of support for a causal effect.

Inappropriate interpretation of findings

We have hereto assumed that the exposure measured in the Mendelian randomization analysis is the true causal agent affecting the outcome. However, this may not be the case. It is possible that a version of the gene–environment equivalence principle is true, but not for the measured exposure. It may be that the measured exposure is a biomarker that acts as a proxy measure of the true causal mechanism of action (Fig.  2 ).

As an example, genetic variants in the IL6R gene region are associated with levels of both interleukin 6 and C-reactive protein. This is plausibly an example of vertical pleiotropy, as the association with C-reactive protein is potentially a downstream consequence of the effect of interleukin 6 receptor signalling [ 36 ]. If we use genetic variants in the IL6R gene region in a Mendelian randomization analysis investigating the effects of interleukin 6 receptor signalling, we should come to the same conclusion whether our nominal biomarker for selecting and weighting instruments is levels of interleukin-6 receptor or levels of C-reactive protein [ 67 ]. Our estimate may be expressed in terms of change in genetically predicted interleukin-6 receptor levels or genetically predicted C-reactive protein levels, but it is the choice of variants that determines the causal question that is being addressed, not the biomarker used to select instruments for the exposure. As a further hypothetical example, suppose that we performed a Mendelian randomization analysis using genetic predictors of left leg mass. Would we be confident that any finding was truly attributable to an effect of left leg mass as opposed to adiposity or muscle mass more generally?

A related issue, particularly for binary exposures, is that genetic variants increase liability to the exposure, but do not necessarily increase the exposure [ 68 ]. For example, most individuals having genetic variants associated with increased schizophrenia risk do not themselves have clinically diagnosed schizophrenia [ 69 ]. Genetic variants that predispose individuals to increased alcohol consumption do not increase exposure to alcohol in populations of non-alcohol drinkers. Genetic variants shown to predispose individuals to greater COVID-19 risk did not increase exposure to COVID-19 in pre-pandemic datasets.

Mendelian randomization is serendipitous in nature; we exploit what is available. We cannot control which genetic variants are available for our analysis, or what these genetic variants do. The gene–environment equivalence principle requires to first understand how the genetic variants operate, and express our causal question in terms of the tools that are available. This implies that a simple conclusion statement such as “the exposure has a causal effect on the outcome” may not be appropriate.

Returning to the example of alcohol, genetic variants that increase alcohol consumption may have effects relating to social aspects of alcohol consumption as well as biological aspects. Those who drink more alcohol in Western societies are likely to spend more time in licenced establishments, and potentially have greater exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Another complication is distinguishing between alcohol consumption and exposure to high alcohol levels. For caffeine, genetic associations with coffee consumption and circulating plasma caffeine levels are not all concordant. This can be explained as some genetic variants that increase caffeine metabolism lead to lower circulating caffeine levels, but greater coffee consumption, as fast caffeine metabolizers tend to consume more coffee to get the same physiological response [ 70 ]. Variants in the ALDH2 and ADH1B gene regions affect alcohol consumption via different biological pathways. While the rs671 variant in ALDH2 decreases alcohol consumption, it impairs the metabolism of alcohol, meaning that carriers who drink alcohol have greater exposure to acetaldehyde, a known carcinogen [ 71 ]. Hence, the associations of the rs671 variant may be misinterpreted if investigators focus on associations with alcohol consumption level. Correct interpretation of Mendelian randomization analyses requires appreciation of the broad social context of alcohol consumption and understanding of the biological effects of the variants.

Researchers should think carefully about the identity of the underlying causal risk factor or mechanism evaluated in their analysis; this may differ from the measured variable used as the exposure. Journal editors and reviewers should be sceptical about strong causal claims. Jumps of logic from factual statements such as “genetic predictors of the exposure were associated with the outcome” (or equivalently “genetically predicted exposure levels were associated with the outcome”) to subjective inferences such as “therefore, we believe the exposure is a cause of the outcome” should only be made when they can be justified [ 72 ]. If it is implausible that an exposure could be altered in a specific way by a genetically regulated mechanism, then it may be that the nominal exposure is a biomarker for a wider mechanism, not the literal causal risk factor.

Lack of engagement with previous literature

Mendelian randomization cannot by itself demonstrate or prove the existence of a causal effect. Indeed, the aim of a Mendelian randomization investigation is often to provide supportive or suggestive evidence to encourage further research, including the establishment of a randomized trial. As such, it is important to weigh evidence from Mendelian randomization against that from other approaches, including epidemiological data, trial findings, and basic science experiments. Triangulation is a framework for evidence synthesis that considers evidence from various sources that make different assumptions, and hence the validity of these assumptions will be orthogonal [ 60 , 73 ]. Evidence from different approaches making different assumptions can provide a more compelling case for a causal effect, or can help enhance the specificity of evidence. By showing that evidence for a causal effect is stronger or weaker in certain circumstances (such as different populations, different times, or different subgroups), we can improve our understanding of the causal mechanism.

In the case of alcohol, while there are no large-scale long-term randomized trials investigating the impact of alcohol consumption on disease outcomes [ 74 ], there are randomized trials exploring the effects of drinking alcohol in the short term, and many mechanistic studies into the effects of alcohol. While several observational epidemiological studies have shown lower risk of cardiovascular disease amongst light drinkers compared to non-drinkers [ 75 ], Mendelian randomization analyses have not supported evidence of a protective effect of increased alcohol at any level of alcohol consumption [ 61 , 76 ]. A Mendelian randomization investigation into the effect of alcohol consumption should explore reasons for discrepancies from results from conventional observational analyses. A potential explanation is that the non-drinker category contains both never-drinkers and former-drinkers, and the observational elevated risk in non-drinkers is due to former-drinkers.

Researchers should compare findings from their Mendelian randomization investigation to those from lab-based experiments, functional genomic studies, observational epidemiological associations, and clinical trials. Results should be appraised in a triangulation framework indicating the extent to which they strengthen or weaken the evidence for a causal effect of the exposure. Journal editors and reviewers should hold authors to high standards and ensure that findings are adequately compared to those from previous Mendelian randomization investigations and other approaches.

Mendelian randomization can be applied in an uncritical, algorithmic way to obtain findings and generate publications [ 77 ]. Policing such outputs is an impossible task requiring far more resources than it takes to create the publications, and the onus should be on authors to perform thoughtful and well-justified analyses. Journal editors at reputable journals should be able to spot low-effort submissions without wasting precious peer review resources. Reviewers should focus not only on whether technical aspects of a submission are present, but also on key indicators that require critical judgement: whether the causal question can plausibly be addressed by Mendelian randomization, whether the choice of variants is justified, whether there has been sufficient interrogation of findings (assessment of internal validity), whether any inferred causal interpretation is appropriate (assessment of external validity), and how this finding supports or refutes aspects of the wider literature. Performing such an investigation requires close collaboration between those with biological, clinical, sociological, genetic, and statistical expertise to understand the plausibility of the assumptions and to perform and interpret analyses appropriately.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable; this manuscript does not contain primary data or analyses.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Abbreviations

Angiotensin converting enzyme

Genome-wide association study/studies

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology using Mendelian Randomization

Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. ‘Mendelian randomization’: can genetic epidemiology contribute to understanding environmental determinants of disease? Int J Epidemiol. 2003;32(1):1–22.

Article   Google Scholar  

Burgess S, Thompson SG. Mendelian randomization: methods for causal inference using genetic variants. 2nd ed. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2021.

Book   Google Scholar  

Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. Mendelian randomization: prospects, potentials, and limitations. Int J Epidemiol. 2004;33(1):30–42.

Zheng J, Baird D, Borges MC, Bowden J, Hemani G, Haycock P, et al. Recent developments in Mendelian randomization studies. Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2017;4(4):330–45.

Article   PubMed Central   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lawlor DA, Harbord RM, Sterne JA, Timpson N, Davey SG. Mendelian randomization: using genes as instruments for making causal inferences in epidemiology. Stat Med. 2008;27(8):1133–63.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Davey Smith G, Lawlor DA, Harbord R, Timpson N, Day I, Ebrahim S. Clustered environments and randomized genes: a fundamental distinction between conventional and genetic epidemiology. PLoS Med. 2007;4(12):e352.

Taylor M, Tansey KE, Lawlor DA, Bowden J, Evans DM, Davey Smith G, Timpson NJ. Testing the principles of Mendelian randomization: opportunities and complications on a genomewide scale. bioRxiv. 2017:124362.

Davey SG. Random allocation in observational data: how small but robust effects could facilitate hypothesis-free causal inference. Epidemiology. 2011;22(4):460–3.

Hingorani A, Humphries S. Nature’s randomised trials. Lancet. 2005;366(9501):1906–8.

Thanassoulis G, O’Donnell CJ. Mendelian randomization: nature’s randomized trial in the post-genome era. JAMA. 2009;301(22):2386–8.

Article   CAS   PubMed Central   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Swanson SA, Tiemeier H, Ikram MA, Hernán MA. Nature as a trialist?: deconstructing the analogy between Mendelian randomization and randomized trials. Epidemiology. 2017;28(5):653–9.

Sanderson E, Glymour MM, Holmes MV, Kang H, Morrison J, Munafò MR, et al. Mendelian randomization. Nat Rev Methods Primers. 2022;2(1):6.

Burgess S, Butterworth A, Malarstig A, Thompson SG. Use of Mendelian randomisation to assess potential benefit of clinical intervention. BMJ. 2012;345:e7325.

Ference BA. How to use Mendelian randomization to anticipate the results of randomized trials. Eur Heart J. 2018;39(5):360–2.

Burgess S, Scott RA, Timpson NJ, Davey Smith G, Thompson SG, EPIC-InterAct Consortium. Using published data in Mendelian randomization: a blueprint for efficient identification of causal risk factors. Eur J Epidemiol. 2015;30(7):543–52.

Hemani G, Bowden J, Haycock P, Zheng J, Davis O, Flach P, et al. Automating Mendelian randomization through machine learning to construct a putative causal map of the human phenome. bioRxiv. 2017:173682.

Burgess S, Butterworth A, Thompson SG. Mendelian randomization analysis with multiple genetic variants using summarized data. Genet Epidemiol. 2013;37(7):658–65.

Thompson JR, Minelli C, Fabiola Del Greco M. Mendelian randomization using public data from genetic consortia. Int J Biostat. 2016;12(2):20150074.

Bowden J, Del Greco MF, Minelli C, Davey Smith G, Sheehan N, Thompson J. A framework for the investigation of pleiotropy in two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization. Stat Med. 2017;36(11):1783–802.

Staley JR, Blackshaw J, Kamat MA, Ellis S, Surendran P, Sun BB, et al. PhenoScanner: a database of human genotype-phenotype associations. Bioinformatics. 2016;32(20):3207–9.

Elsworth B, Lyon M, Alexander T, Liu Y, Matthews P, Hallett J, et al. The MRC IEU OpenGWAS data infrastructure. bioRxiv. 2020;2020.08.10.244293.

Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. Mendelian randomisation at 20 years: how can it avoid hubris, while achieving more? Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2024;12(1):14–7.

Hemani G, Zheng J, Elsworth B, Wade K, Haberland V, Baird D, et al. The MR-Base platform supports systematic causal inference across the human phenome. eLife. 2018;7:e34408.

Burgess S, Davey Smith G, Davies NM, Dudbridge F, Gill D, Glymour MM, et al. Guidelines for performing Mendelian randomization investigations. Wellcome Open Res. 2020;4:186.

Skrivankova VW, Richmond RC, Woolf BAR, Yarmolinsky J, Davies NM, Swanson SA, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology using Mendelian randomization: the STROBE-MR statement. JAMA. 2021;326(16):1614–21.

Hartwig FP, Davies NM, Hemani G, Davey SG. Two-sample Mendelian randomization: avoiding the downsides of a powerful, widely applicable but potentially fallible technique. Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45(6):1717–26.

Tian H, Mason AM, Liu C, Burgess S. Relaxing parametric assumptions for non-linear Mendelian randomization using a doubly-ranked stratification method. PLoS Genet. 2023;19(6):e1010823.

Evans DM, Moen G-H, Hwang L-D, Lawlor DA, Warrington NM. Elucidating the role of maternal environmental exposures on offspring health and disease using two-sample Mendelian randomization. Int J Epidemiol. 2019;48(3):861–75.

Sanderson E, Richardson TG, Morris TT, Tilling K, Davey SG. Estimation of causal effects of a time-varying exposure at multiple time points through multivariable Mendelian randomization. PLoS Genet. 2022;18(7):e1010290.

Wade KH, Hamilton FW, Carslake D, Sattar N, Davey Smith G, Timpson NJ. Challenges in undertaking nonlinear Mendelian randomization. Obesity. 2023;31(12):2887–90.

Burgess S. Violation of the constant genetic effect assumption can result in biased estimates for non-linear Mendelian randomization. Hum Hered. 2023;88(1):79–90.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Tian H, Burgess S. Estimation of time-varying causal effects with multivariable Mendelian randomization: some cautionary notes. Int J Epidemiol. 2023;52(3):846–57.

Greenland S. An introduction to instrumental variables for epidemiologists. Int J Epidemiol. 2000;29(4):722–9.

Labrecque J, Swanson SA. Understanding the assumptions underlying instrumental variable analyses: a brief review of falsification strategies and related tools. Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2018;5(3):214–20.

Davey Smith G, Hemani G. Mendelian randomization: genetic anchors for causal inference in epidemiological studies. Hum Mol Genet. 2014;23(R1):R89–98.

Holmes MV, Ala-Korpela M, Davey SG. Mendelian randomization in cardiometabolic disease: challenges in evaluating causality. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2017;14(10):577–90.

Hamer D, Sirota L. Beware the chopsticks gene. Mol Psychiatry. 2000;5(1):11–3.

Au Yeung SL, Gill D. Concerns over using the Mendelian randomization design to investigate the effect of air pollution. Sci Total Environ. 2024;917: 170474.

UK Biobank Small Area Health Statistics Unit. UK Biobank – environmental exposures – metadata. 2014. Available at https://biobank.ndph.ox.ac.uk/ukb/ukb/docs/EnviroExposEst.pdf .  (Last Accessed 2024–03–08).

Hatcher C, Richenberg G, Waterson S, Nguyen LH, Joshi AD, Carreras-Torres R, et al. Application of Mendelian randomization to explore the causal role of the human gut microbiome in colorectal cancer. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):5968.

Zhernakova DV, Wang D, Liu L, Andreu-Sánchez S, Zhang Y, Ruiz-Moreno AJ, et al. Host genetic regulation of human gut microbial structural variation. Nature. 2024;625(7996):813–21.

Morris TT, Davies NM, Hemani G, Smith GD. Population phenomena inflate genetic associations of complex social traits. Sci Adv. 2020;6(16):eaay0328.

van de Luitgaarden IAT, van Oort S, Bouman EJ, Schoonmade LJ, Schrieks IC, Grobbee DE, et al. Alcohol consumption in relation to cardiovascular diseases and mortality: a systematic review of Mendelian randomization studies. Eur J Epidemiol. 2022;37(7):655–69.

Gill D, Georgakis MK, Walker VM, Schmidt AF, Gkatzionis A, Freitag DF, et al. Mendelian randomization for studying the effects of perturbing drug targets. Wellcome Open Res. 2021;6:16.

Schmidt AF, Finan C, Gordillo-Marañón M, Asselbergs FW, Freitag DF, Patel RS, et al. Genetic drug target validation using Mendelian randomisation. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):3255.

Karjalainen MK, Karthikeyan S, Oliver-Williams C, Sliz E, Allara E, Fung WT, et al. Genome-wide characterization of circulating metabolic biomarkers. Nature. 2024;628(8006):130–8.

Seyed Khoei N, Carreras-Torres R, Murphy N, Gunter MJ, Brennan P, Smith-Byrne K, et al. Genetically raised circulating bilirubin levels and risk of ten cancers: a Mendelian randomization study. Cells. 2021;10(2):394.

Holmes MV, Dale CE, Zuccolo L, Silverwood RJ, Guo Y, Ye Z, et al. Association between alcohol and cardiovascular disease: Mendelian randomisation analysis based on individual participant data. BMJ. 2014;349:g4164.

Burgess S, Cronjé HT. Incorporating biological and clinical insights into variant choice for Mendelian randomisation: examples and principles. eGastroenterology. 2024;2(1):e100042.

Ryan DK, Karhunen V, Su B, Traylor M, Richardson TG, Burgess S, et al. Genetic evidence for protective effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme against Alzheimer disease but not other neurodegenerative diseases in European populations. Neurol Genet. 2022;8(5):e200014.

Yang C, Farias FH, Ibanez L, Suhy A, Sadler B, Fernandez MV, et al. Genomic atlas of the proteome from brain, CSF and plasma prioritizes proteins implicated in neurological disorders. Nat Neurosci. 2021;24(9):1302–12.

Slob EAW, Burgess S. A comparison of robust Mendelian randomization methods using summary data. Genet Epidemiol. 2020;44(4):313–29.

VanderWeele TJ, Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Cornelis M, Kraft P. Methodological challenges in Mendelian randomization. Epidemiology. 2014;25(3):427–35.

Burgess S, Bowden J, Fall T, Ingelsson E, Thompson SG. Sensitivity analyses for robust causal inference from Mendelian randomization analyses with multiple genetic variants. Epidemiology. 2017;28(1):30–4.

Sanderson E, Richardson TG, Hemani G, Davey SG. The use of negative control outcomes in Mendelian randomization to detect potential population stratification. Int J Epidemiol. 2021;50(4):1350–61.

Zuber V, Grinberg NF, Gill D, Manipur I, Slob EAW, Patel A, et al. Combining evidence from Mendelian randomization and colocalization: review and comparison of approaches. Am J Hum Genet. 2022;109(5):767–82.

van Kippersluis H, Rietveld CA. Pleiotropy-robust Mendelian randomization. Int J Epidemiol. 2018;47(4):1279–88.

Burgess S. “C-reactive protein levels and risk of dementia”: subgroup analyses in Mendelian randomization are likely to be misleading. Alzheimers Dement. 2022;18(12):2732–3.

Sanderson E, Davey Smith G, Windmeijer F, Bowden J. An examination of multivariable Mendelian randomization in the single-sample and two-sample summary data settings. Int J Epidemiol. 2019;48(3):713–27.

Lawlor DA, Tilling K, Davey SG. Triangulation in aetiological epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45(6):1866–86.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Millwood IY, Walters RG, Mei XW, Guo Y, Yang L, Bian Z, et al. Conventional and genetic evidence on alcohol and vascular disease aetiology: a prospective study of 500 000 men and women in China. Lancet. 2019;393(10183):1831–42.

Lewis SJ, Davey SG. Alcohol, ALDH2, and esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis which illustrates the potentials and limitations of a Mendelian randomization approach. Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers. 2005;14(8):1967–71.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Cho Y, Shin S-Y, Won S, Relton CL, Davey Smith G, Shin M-J. Alcohol intake and cardiovascular risk factors: a Mendelian randomisation study. Sci Rep. 2015;5(1):18422.

Lankester J, Zanetti D, Ingelsson E, Assimes TL. Alcohol use and cardiometabolic risk in the UK Biobank: a Mendelian randomization study. PLoS One. 2021;16(8):e0255801.

Larsson SC, Burgess S, Mason AM, Michaëlsson K. Alcohol consumption and cardiovascular disease. Circ Genom Precis Med. 2020;13(3):e002814.

Yuan S, Chen J, Ruan X, Sun Y, Zhang K, Wang X, et al. Smoking, alcohol consumption, and 24 gastrointestinal diseases: Mendelian randomization analysis. eLife. 2023;12:e84051.

Rosa M, Chignon A, Li Z, Boulanger M-C, Arsenault BJ, Bossé Y, et al. A Mendelian randomization study of IL6 signaling in cardiovascular diseases, immune-related disorders and longevity. NPJ Genom Med. 2019;4(1):23.

Burgess S, Labrecque JA. Mendelian randomization with a binary exposure variable: interpretation and presentation of causal estimates. Eur J Epidemiol. 2018;33:947–52.

Davey Smith G, Munafo M. Does schizophrenia influence cannabis use? How to report the influence of disease liability on outcomes in Mendelian randomization studies. 2019. Available at https://targ.blogs.bristol.ac.uk/2019/01/07/does-schizophrenia-influence-cannabis-use-how-to-report-the-influence-of-disease-liability-on-outcomes-in-mendelian-randomization-studies/ . (Last Accessed 2024–03–08).

Woolf B, Cronjé HT, Zagkos L, Larsson SC, Gill D, Burgess S. Comparison of caffeine consumption behavior with plasma caffeine levels as exposures in drug-target Mendelian randomization and implications for interpreting effects on obesity. Am J Epidemiol. 2024. In press.

Im PK, Yang L, Kartsonaki C, Chen Y, Guo Y, Du H, et al. Alcohol metabolism genes and risks of site-specific cancers in Chinese adults: an 11-year prospective study. Int J Cancer. 2022;150(10):1627–39.

Burgess S, O’Donnell CJ, Gill D. Expressing results from a Mendelian randomization analysis: separating results from inferences. JAMA Cardiol. 2021;6(1):7–8.

PubMed Central   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Munafò MR, Davey SG. Robust research needs many lines of evidence. Nature. 2018;553(7689):399–401.

Spiegelman D, Lovato LC, Khudyakov P, Wilkens TL, Adebamowo CA, Adebamowo SN, et al. The Moderate Alcohol and Cardiovascular Health Trial (MACH15): design and methods for a randomized trial of moderate alcohol consumption and cardiometabolic risk. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2020;27(18):1967–82.

Wood AM, Kaptoge S, Butterworth AS, Willeit P, Warnakula S, Bolton T, et al. Risk thresholds for alcohol consumption: combined analysis of individual-participant data for 599912 current drinkers in 83 prospective studies. Lancet. 2018;391(10129):1513–23.

Biddinger KJ, Emdin CA, Haas ME, Wang M, Hindy G, Ellinor PT, et al. Association of habitual alcohol intake with risk of cardiovascular disease. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(3):e223849-e.

Burgess S, Davey SG. How humans can contribute to Mendelian randomization analyses. Int J Epidemiol. 2019;48(3):661–4.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the attendees of the 6th Mendelian randomization conference at the University of Bristol for their feedback on this work.

SB and BW are supported by the Wellcome Trust (225790/Z/22/Z) and the United Kingdom Research and Innovation Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00002/7). MAK was supported by a research grant from the Sigrid Juselius Foundation, the Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, and the Research Council of Finland (grant no. 357183). AMM is supported by core funding from the British Heart Foundation (RG/18/13/33946), Cambridge British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence (RE/18/1/34212), British Heart Foundation Chair Award (CH/12/2/29428), and by Health Data Research UK. This research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20014, NIHR203312). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Stephen Burgess & Benjamin Woolf

Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Stephen Burgess & Amy M. Mason

School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Benjamin Woolf

MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unitat the , University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Victor Phillip Dahdaleh Heart and Lung Research Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Amy M. Mason

Systems Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, Research Unit of Population Health, University of Oulu and Biocenter Oulu, Oulu, Finland

Mika Ala-Korpela

NMR Metabolomics Laboratory, School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK

Dipender Gill

Sequoia Genetics, London, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

SB wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. DG supervised the work. All authors revised the submission critically for important intellectual content.

Authors’ Twitter handles

@stevesphd, @barwoolf, @amymariemason, @mak_sysepi, @dpsg108.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen Burgess .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare 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/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Burgess, S., Woolf, B., Mason, A.M. et al. Addressing the credibility crisis in Mendelian randomization. BMC Med 22 , 374 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03607-5

Download citation

Received : 08 July 2024

Accepted : 03 September 2024

Published : 11 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03607-5

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

• Causal inference
• Genetic epidemiology
• Instrumental variables
• Evidence synthesis
• Risk of bias
• Bias evaluation

BMC Medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Systematic Review
• Open access
• Published: 14 September 2024

The aetiology and antimicrobial resistance of bacterial maternal infections in Sub-Saharan Africa—a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Chikondi Chapuma 1 , 2 ,
• Hussein H. Twabi 3 ,
• Edward J. M. Monk 2 ,
• James Jafali 1 , 2 ,
• Andrew Weeks 1 ,
• Emily Beales 2 ,
• David Kulapani 3 ,
• Apatsa Selemani 3 ,
• Marriott Nliwasa 3 ,
• Luis Gadama 3 ,
• Tony Nyirenda 3 ,
• Chisomo Msefula 3 ,
• Catherine Dunlop 5 ,
• Samantha Lissauer 1 , 2 ,
• Nicholas Feasey 1 , 4 ,
• Charlotte Van der Veer 1 , 2   na1 &
• David Lissauer 1 , 2   na1  

BMC Infectious Diseases volume  24 , Article number:  978 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Understanding the aetiological organisms causing maternal infections is crucial to inform antibiotic treatment guidelines, but such data are scarce from Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to address this gap.

Microbiologically confirmed maternal infection data were collected from PubMed, Embase, and African Journals online databases. The search strategy combined terms related to bacterial infection, pregnancy, postnatal period, observational studies, SSA. Exclusion criteria included colonization, asymptomatic infection, and screening studies. Pooled proportions for bacterial isolates and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) were calculated. Quality and completeness of reporting were assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa and STROBE checklists.

We included 14 papers comprising data from 2,575 women from four sources (blood, urine, surgical wound and endocervical). Mixed-growth was commonly reported at 17% (95% CI: 12%-23%), E. coli  from 11%(CI:10%-12%),  S. aureus  from 5%(CI: 5%-6%), Klebsiella spp .  at 5%(CI: 4%- 5%) and  Streptococcus spp . at 2%(CI: 1%-2%). We observed intra-sample and inter-sample heterogeneity between 88–92% in all meta-analyses. AMR rates were between 19% -77%, the highest with first-line beta-lactam antibiotics. Convenience sampling, and limited reporting of laboratory techniques were areas of concern.

Interpretation

We provide a comprehensive summary of microbial aetiology of maternal infections in SSA and demonstrate the paucity of data available for this region. We flag the need to review the current local and international empirical treatment guidelines for maternal bacterial infections in SSA because there is high prevalence of AMR among common causative bacteria.

This research was supported by the NIHR-Professorship/NIHR300808 and the Wellcome-Strategic-award /206545/Z/17/Z.

Trial registration

Prospero ID CRD42021238515.

Peer Review reports

Evidence before this study

Global frequency for infection-related severe maternal outcomes is 70.4 per 1000 livebirths in Low and Middle-Income Countries (LMIC) and 10.9 per 1000 livebirths in High-Income countries (HIC).

The World Health Organisation (WHO) international empiric clinical treatment guidelines for maternal infection in LMICs recommend ampicillin (a penicillin) and once-daily gentamicin as first-line antibiotics for treating maternal peripartum infections, and a combination of clindamycin and gentamicin for postpartum endometritis. The WHO also recommends amoxicillin for lower urinary tract infections and a medical review for other causes, such as soft tissue infections.

There is still no global data on the microbial aetiology of maternal infections, which is needed to guide management of maternal infections in LMIC, where the burden of disease is the highest

Added value of the study

This study summarizes the available microbial aetiology and the antibiotic susceptibility profiles for the causative bacterial agents for maternal infection in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). It also estimates the prevalence, diagnostic yield and antimicrobial drug resistance patterns of symptomatic and clinically relevant maternal bacteraemia, bacteriuria, endometritis, and soft tissue infection. This study also demonstrates the limited and scanty evidence available for the microbiology of maternal infection.

Implications of all the available evidence

There is a need for high-quality surveillance of maternal microbiological data in this context.

This study provides the best evidence to inform empirical treatment guidelines for local and international maternal infections.

This study also flags the need to review the current local and international treatment guidelines for maternal bacterial infections in SSA because the results of this study indicate a high prevalence of AMR in common causative events of maternal infections to commonly used antimicrobial drugs in SSA.

Introduction

Over the past 25 years, there has been a 44% decrease in Maternal Mortality Ratio (MMR) globally [ 1 ], which falls well short of the 2015 Millennium Development Goal target of a 75% reduction in MMR [ 2 ]. There is therefore an urgent need to strengthen efforts to reduce maternal mortality if the Sustainable Development Goals target, to reduce MMR to less than 70 per 100,000 live births by 2030 is to be met [ 3 ].

The global burden of maternal deaths is highest in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) [ 4 ,  5 ]. Over two-thirds of global maternal deaths occur in SSA, with at least 200,000 deaths per year [ 6 ,  1 ]. Of these deaths, up to 10% are due to infection which is twice the proportion observed in high income countries [ 7 ]. The problem's origins lie in the low quality of care areas, including inconsistent infection prevention, poor infection treatment, delayed sepsis diagnosis, and inadequate sepsis management. In addition, limited availability of validated diagnostics (culture and sensitivity) poses difficulties in prompt identification and management of maternal infection in SSA [ 8 ]. Therefore, prioritizing surveillance in this arena to describe the existing landscape of maternal infections in this region is essential to guide simple strategies to prevent morbidity and mortality from maternal infections. It also has the potential to reduce maternal death rates globally.

Data on the microbiologic causes of bacterial maternal infections can inform policies (programme strategies and treatment guidelines) and identify antimicrobial resistance (AMR) threats in SSA. However, there are challenges in estimating maternal sepsis burden due to differences in its definitions [ 9 , 10 ]. Notably, within obstetrics there are a broad range of clinically relevant infections and infection sources that are associated with maternal sepsis. These include infections from the urogenital tract, but also infections associated with other organ systems, such as pneumonia. The World Health Organization (WHO) has therefore proposed a broad definition for maternal sepsis which we used for this systematic review to describe any “symptomatic maternal bacterial infection”. It spans across the pregnancy period spectrum, including the antenatal, peripartum, postpartum, and post-abortion periods (up to 42 days of pregnancy termination). It also incorporates an extensive host of infectious morbidities, including genital tract infections (e.g., chorioamnionitis and endometritis), extra-genital infections (e.g., surgical site infections), as well as other maternal bacterial infections complicating pregnancy, childbirth, and the puerperium (e.g., sexually transmitted infections (STIs), urinary tract infections (UTIs) [ 10 ].

Despite significantly higher maternal infection-related mortality in SSA, to date there has been no systematic review that summarizes the underlying microbiological agents causing maternal bacterial infection in SSA, nor their resistance patterns. Therefore, using the WHO definition of maternal infection and sepsis, this systematic review will summarise the available data on the main bacterial agents causing maternal infection and their susceptibility to antibiotics to inform the international and local current empiric antibiotic treatment guidelines. It will also assess completeness and quality of the available data.

Registration

This systematic review is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on March 2021 (Registration number: CRD42021238515).

Search strategy and selection criteria

We searched PUBMED, Embase and African Journals online databases using a search strategy that combined terms relating to laboratory-confirmed bacterial infection, pregnancy, postnatal period, observational studies, and SSA (Supplementary I). A comprehensive literature search (last search 29th March 2023) was performed through the three databases with the support of a clinical librarian. The search did not contain letters or editorials. We used the “humans”, “female”, and “age” filters. We translated non-English articles. We also searched the systematic review registries for ongoing reviews.

We included any observational study (cohort, case–control, and cross-sectional studies) describing the aetiology and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) patterns of maternal bacterial infection in SSA. This review considered any studies that evaluated symptomatic laboratory-confirmed bacterial infection in keeping with the WHO definition of maternal infection/sepsis among pregnant and postpartum women (up to 42 days after birth). We excluded papers that contained incomplete/internally inconsistent data, that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of any test using only positive samples and that were not in the clinical context of suspected maternal infection. We excluded studies that only described maternal colonization of bacteria rather than infection; for example, maternal colonization of Group B streptococci (GBS) in neonatal infection. Screening studies that did not include women who fulfil the WHO definition were also excluded, for example, studies that evaluated the prevalence of sexually transmitted infections among women attending routine clinical check-ups. Finally, we excluded studies reporting on only one type of bacteria as this may skew proportional estimates.

Two independent authors (CC and CVD) screened titles and abstracts with aid from a librarian (AS) in Rayyan. Duplicates were removed and reviewed individually by CC and CVD. If at least one of the authors approved the study, we obtained the full-text report. In both stages, we compared the results against eligibility criteria. CC and CVD resolved disagreements through discussion; if they could not reach an agreement, a third author (DL) resolved the disagreement.

Data collection and extraction

Using a Microsoft Excel database, CC and CVD extracted the following data from the eligible full-text studies; identification details of the study, including the title, language, authors, year of publication, country, region, setting (urban or rural), study design, study inclusion and exclusion criteria; participant characteristics, including participants’ age (median and range), gestation period, co-morbidities (for example, HIV status) and study sample size; exposure of interest, such as type of bacterial infection (invasive or non-invasive), source of infection, when the invasive bacterial infection occurred (antenatal/postnatal); and outcomes of interest, namely the number and type of samples taken, number of positive samples; the diagnostic method used, antimicrobial susceptibility testing results and the methodology used, and maternal outcomes (if reported).

We contacted the study correspondence authors for further information for studies published only as abstracts. For study reports containing little details on methods and results, we also contacted the authors to obtain additional information on these elements. Disagreements regarding the data extracted were resolved by discussion and, if necessary, by consulting a third review author (DL).

Data analysis

The analysis was conducted in R (R Core Team, 2022), using RStudio [ 11 ]. We applied the metafor package [ 12 ] to perform a meta-analysis of; i prevalence (number of causative agent of interest/total number of samples assessed) and, ii diagnostic yield (number of causative agent of interest/total number of positive isolates; and their 95% confidence intervals) [ 12 ]. Pooled estimates from the eligible studies on each causative agents of maternal bacterial infections were estimated using random-effects models (REM) and the DerSimonian-Laird method [ 13 ]. We also performed sub-group meta-analyses according to the source of infection; and estimated pooled proportions of antimicrobial resistance for the commonest bacteria for the papers that reported on antibiotic susceptibility.

Completeness and quality assessments of the papers

To assess reporting completeness and quality of included studies, two authors (CVD with either EJMM or EB) independently assessed included studies according to Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology [ 14 , 15 , 16 ] and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale [ 17 , 18 ], respectively. They then independently applied the checklists to each included study. Both checklists were adopted to better serve reporting of microbiological data.

This systematic review and meta-analysis database search identified 3108 papers for abstract screening after removing duplicates (Fig.  1 ). Fifty-eight papers were eligible for full-text review; 12 articles were excluded because of no correspondence from authors in studies that reported little detail on results; three papers were on premature rupture of membranes (PROM) screening, six papers had no microbiological data, two were microbiome papers, 20 articles targeted the wrong population, and one article had incoherent results. Therefore, 14 articles were eligible for data extraction. All 14 articles reported data on aetiology, and ten reported on AMR. Two articles were in French [ 19 , 20 ] and translated by EM and CVD prior to analysis.

PRISMA Flow diagram

The main characteristics of the papers included in this systematic review and meta-analysis are summarised in Table  1 and the geographical distribution in Fig.  2 . Eight studies were from East Africa (five from Ethiopia), two from Southern Africa and three from West Africa (Fig.  2 ). The proportion of study participants with suspected maternal infection who had laboratory confirmed diagnosis ranged from 20.4% to 100%.

Geographical representation of studies reporting aetiological data for laboratory-confirmed bacterial maternal infection in Sub-Sahara Africa

Figure  3 shows a forest plot of the pooled proportion of the reported causative agents of bacterial maternal infection for all sample types combined. Overall, mixed growth was reported most at 17% (CI: 12%—23%), followed by E. coli at 11% (CI:10%—12%), S. aureus at 5% (CI: 5% -6%), S. epidermis at 7% (CI: 2%, 16%), Klebsiella spp . at 5% (CI: 4%-5%), L. lactis at 5% (CI:1%-15%) and Coagulase negative Staphylococci (CONS) was 3% (CI:2%-4%).

Pooled proportion of bacterial aetiological agents isolated from patients with suspected maternal infection in Sub-Saharan Africa

When we stratified the data by sample type (Fig.  4 ); blood culture was rarely positive at 2% (CI: 2%-3%), of which growth for Klebsiella spp . at 4% (CI: 2%-6%), S. aureus at 4% (CI: 2%-5%) and E. coli at 4% (CI: 3%-6%) was most reported. Around 4% (CI: 2% -6%) of endocervical discharge samples yielded positive cultures of which the majority yielded E. coli at 25% (CI:22%-29%), mixed growth at 17% (CI: 12%-23%) and S. aureus at 14% (CI: 11%-17%). The urine cultures were positive in 1% of cases (CI: 1%-2%). The most common pathogens identified were Klebsiella spp at 4% (CI: 3%-5%), S. aureus at 2% (CI: 2%-3%), and E. coli at 9% (CI: 8%-10%). Approximately 8% (CI: 5–12%) of wound samples generated positive cultures of which the majority showed growth for S. aureus at 30% (CI: 24%-37%) followed by Acinetobacter (16%; CI: 7%-28%). Notably, we observed both intra-sample and inter-sample heterogeneity in both meta-analyses ranging from 79–96%.

Pooled prevalence of bacterial causative agents- sub-group analysis by sample type

For samples yielding positive cultures, we pooled the proportion of each causative agent (Fig.  5 ). Overall, the predominant causative agents among positive cultures were E. coli at 36% (CI: 33%-38%), mixed growth at 20% (CI: 14%-27%), Veillonella spp. at 20% (CI: 1%-72%), S. aureus at 18% (CI: 16%-20%), and Klebsiella spp. at 15% (CI: 13%-17%). The forest plot in Fig.  6 shows the pooled proportion stratified by sample type. Positive samples from cervicovaginal and urine most commonly yielded E coli, at 38% (CI: 33%-43%) and 43% (CI:38%-47%), respectively; while wound swabs yielded S aureus at 28% (CI: 22%-34%). We also observed both intra-sample and inter-sample heterogeneity in both meta-analyses ranging from 80–96%. Similarly, Fig.  7 presents a stratified bar graph based on sample sources, namely blood, endocervical discharge, urine, and wound discharge. The graph illustrates the composition of resistant samples for each bacterium. The data reveals that among all resistant bacteria, E. coli is the most frequently isolated bacterium from blood ( n  = 27/ 96, 28%), urine ( n  = 247/ 581, 43%), and endocervical samples ( n  = 163/ 416, 39%). In contrast, S. aureus (61/ 203, 30%) is predominantly isolated from surgical wound sites.

Pooled proportions of bacterial causative agents amongst the positive isolates

Sub-group analysis by sample type of pooled proportions of bacterial causative agents amongst the positive isolates

Stratified resistance sample composition

We summarized pooled antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) profiles E. coli, Klebsiella spp. and S aureus (reported from the studies) to commonly used WHO classes of antibiotics in SSA; penicillin (amoxicillin and ampicillin), gentamicin, ciprofloxacin, and ceftriaxone (Fig.  8 ) as these were the most common clinically relevant antibiotics retrieved from this meta-analysis. Notably, there was limited data on third-line treatments carbapenems, and co-trimoxazole. The pooled resistance of E. coli to Penicillin (amoxicillin and ampicillin), gentamicin, ciprofloxacin, and ceftriaxone was 65%, 22%, 24% and 36%, respectively. The pooled resistance of Klebsiella spp. to penicillin (amoxicillin and ampicillin), gentamicin, ciprofloxacin, and ceftriaxone was 77%, 33%, 19% and 40%, respectively. The pooled resistance of S. aureus to penicillin (amoxicillin and ampicillin), gentamicin, ciprofloxacin, and ceftriaxone was 68%, 30%, 24%, and 32%, respectively.

Pooled AMR Profiles of the most common causative agents to ceftriaxone, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin and penicillins. *Amoxicillin and Ampicillin, (a-b) gram negative species and (c) gram positive species

The assessment of strength of reporting within each included study, according to the STROBE criteria, is summarized in Fig.  9 . We assessed completeness of reporting using the STROBE checklist, including the title, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and funding. Of the criteria assessed, bias reporting was the least well-reported methods criteria (only 5/14 [35.7%] addressed bias clearly). Other criteria that should have been reported more comprehensively were the limitations of the studies and funding sources. The main study results of interest for this review, however, were clear and detailed for all included studies.

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Checklist

Supplementary II summarises the quality of the 14 papers included in the study using the Newcastle–Ottawa score. We determined the risk of bias in each article by assessing its ability to represent the exposed group, ascertain the exposed group, control for confounding, and make an outcome assessment. Notably, all studies dropped at least three points, spread across 2–3 assessment categories, with 8/14 (57.1%) dropping two points in a single category and at particular risk of introducing bias. The main reasons for introducing bias were use of convenience sampling rather than random sampling of included patients, lack of laboratory facilities to perform anaerobic culture, minimal to no control of confounding (for e.g., antibiotic exposure, HIV status), no or insufficient differentiation in outcome assessment regarding commensal contamination versus pathogen.

Here we performed a systematic review of the literature summarizing available aetiological and antimicrobial resistance data on bacterial maternal infections in SSA. Our study shows that E. coli, S. aureus, and Klebsiella spp. are the most common pathogens associated with maternal infections. Notably, E. coli and Klebsiella spp. are commonly and intrinsically resistant to penicillin, respectively. At least 21.5% of these isolates ( E. coli, S. aureus, and Klebsiella spp. ) exhibited resistance to other first-line and second-line antibiotics, including ciprofloxacin and gentamicin. Additionally, up to 39.6% of these isolates were resistant to ceftriaxone, a second-line treatment.

Our findings are consistent with the 2022 Global Antimicrobial Resistance and use Surveillance System (GLASS) [ 33 ]. In their report, the WHO reported third-generation cephalosporin- resistance for  E. coli at 42%, K. pneumoniae between (59% – 65%) and methicillin-resistant   S. aureus   (MRSA) at 35% causing bloodstream infections [ 33 ]. In addition, resistance rates of  E. coli to first-line antibiotics (penicillins) and second-line drugs (ciprofloxacin) were both > 20% and of great concern. A notable limitation of GLASS data is the lack of stratified data on age and gender, and it did not specifically look at the pregnant/post-partum population to inform the global picture of bacterial infection and AMR. This challenge limits the data interpretation in the context of maternal infections. For this population analysing AMR surveillance data by age groups and infection types are crucial to informing and directing mitigation strategies and interventions to control the mechanisms of the spread of the causative agents and AMR. In addition, some antibiotics used in the general population cannot be used in pregnancy due to adverse effects on the unborn infant. Therefore, these factors need to be accounted for in the surveillance systems.

Our systematic review and meta-analysis provide stratified maternal infection data, but it has some limitations. For example, the reporting AST of K. pneumoniae to co-trimoxazole and carbapenems is of public health relevance because resistance genes in Enterobacterales to these antibiotics are frequently associated with mobile genetic elements that increase the likelihood of pan-drug-resistant and extreme-drug-resistant isolates. Our study could not assess the resistance of carbapenems and co-trimoxazole due to limited data to make such pooled estimates. This likely reflects the local prescribing behaviour as third-generation drugs such as carbapenems are rarely available. Nonetheless, rising ESBL rates may incentivize the use of carbapenems and co-trimoxazole, making urgent surveillance of resistance to these antibiotics essential. Another challenge was that the studies included in our meta-analyses were performed in government and mostly tertiary hospitals and not private or primary healthcare facilities. Therefore, the data presented here may be skewed in the direction of hospital-acquired (resistant) bacterial infection as prior antibiotic exposure was not always reported and/or accounted for. Nonetheless, most patients in SSA with severe maternal infection will attend government hospitals.

Quality assessment of the papers shows some areas of concern. Most studies report convenience sampling of patients with suspected maternal sepsis and no randomized sampling was reported, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to the wider maternal population. This in addition to the lack of information on prior antibiotic exposure means there may be common infectious agents responsive to empiric treatments which were not captured within this review. Limited studies reported anaerobic culturing methods meaning important pathogens could have been missed. Only 3/7 studies reported in their methodology that they accounted for contaminants making data from non-sterile sampling sites such as wounds and cervicovaginal swabs difficult to interpret [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 24 , 27 , 29 , 31 ]. Also, some studies reported resistance to penicillin by Gram-negative causative agents (known to be inherently resistant to penicillin). We would have liked to stratify our analyses by important factors such as HIV status, considering that HIV increases the risk of maternal morbidity and mortality, but HIV-status data was missing for most studies. Majangara et al. [ 27 ] was the only study reviewed here that stratified data according to HIV status and reported increased length of hospitalization stay for HIV positive women with puerperal sepsis but they did not find a specific microbial agent that significantly associated with HIV status.

We expected to see high clinical and statistical heterogeneity, as demonstrated by the results (inter- and intra-study heterogeneity 88–92% in all the meta-analyses performed). This heterogeneity can be explained by our summary table and subgroup analysis by sample type. However, pooled estimates from these papers are still clinically relevant.

In light of these findings, several crucial implications emerge. Firstly, the apparent deficiency in data underscores the pressing need for concerted efforts in systematic data collection, particularly from government laboratories. Such initiatives are essential not only for assessing sensitivities but also for obtaining accurate and comprehensive rates of AMR. The limited availability of robust data poses a significant challenge to achieving the WHO's universal health care ambition. Additionally, the identified low rates of bacterial detection in laboratory settings raise questions about the utility of current practices. It prompts reflection on whether these detection rates are reasonable, considering their potential impact on the quality of treatment. The ability to deliver high-quality treatment is directly influenced by the accuracy and reliability of laboratory results, emphasizing the importance of addressing and rectifying potential limitations in detection methods.

Furthermore, the documented high rates of treatment failure (for invasive and non-invasive bacterial infections), particularly alarming in resource-constrained populations, emphasize the critical need for immediate attention. In economically challenged settings where financial constraints limit the purchase of various antibiotics, and follow-up is challenging in the face of detected resistance, effective treatment becomes a formidable challenge. This warrants a comprehensive re-evaluation of current guidelines and practices, especially in the context of syndromic treatment. The data strongly suggests the necessity for revisions to existing guidance to ensure that the first-line treatment is appropriately targeted and effective.

Our findings highlight the need for high-quality surveillance for maternal microbiological data in SSA, including stratification according to the target demographic population. The results indicate a high prevalence of resistance in common causative agents of maternal infections to essential antimicrobial drugs in empirical treatment guidelines. These include ampicillin (a penicillin) as first-line antibiotics for treating maternal peripartum infection in combination with gentamicin. AMR has also been observed in amoxicillin and ceftriaxone, the highest priority agent among the critically important antimicrobials for human medicine. Our findings also flag the need to review local and international treatment guidelines for maternal bacterial infections in SSA.

Availability of data and materials

Data are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA WBG and the UNPD. WHO | Trends in maternal mortality: 1990 to 2015. WHO. 2016. p. 18–25. Available from: https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/monitoring/maternal-mortality-2015/en/ . Cited 2021 Aug 26.

Chatterjee DK. United Nations Millennium Development Goals. In: Encyclopedia of Global Justice. 2011. p. 1105–1105. Available from: https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/maternal.shtml . Cited 2021 Aug 26.

UNSD, DESA. SDG Indicators — SDG Indicators. United Nations Statistics Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2017. Available from: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/?Text=&Goal=3&Target=3.1 . Cited 2021 Aug 26.

Bonet M, Brizuela V, Abalos E, Cuesta C, Baguiya A, Chamillard M, et al. Frequency and management of maternal infection in health facilities in 52 countries (GLOSS): a 1-week inception cohort study. Lancet Glob Health. 2020;8(5):661–71 Available from: www.thelancet.com/lancetgh . Cited 2021 Jan 4.

Article   Google Scholar  

Chou D, Daelmans B, Jolivet RR, Kinney M, Say L. Ending preventable maternal and newborn mortality and stillbirths. BMJ (Online). 2015;351:19–22 Available from: www.who.int/reproductivehealth . Cited 2021 Aug 26.

Google Scholar  

UNICEF. Maternal mortality rates and statistics - UNICEF DATA. UNICEF Data: Monitoring the situation of children and women. 2019. p. 1–8. Available from: https://data.unicef.org/topic/maternal-health/maternal-mortality/ . Cited 2022 Feb 20.

Say L, Chou D, Gemmill A, Tunçalp Ö, Moller AB, Daniels J, et al. Global causes of maternal death: A WHO systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2014;2(6):e323–33. Available from: http://www.thelancet.com/article/S2214109X1470227X/fulltext . Cited 2024 Sep 9.

Iskandar K, Molinier L, Hallit S, Sartelli M, Hardcastle TC, Haque M, et al. Surveillance of antimicrobial resistance in low- and middle-income countries: a scattered picture. Antimicrob Resist Infect Cont. 2021;10(1):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-021-00931-w . Available from: https://aricjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/ . Cited 2023 Feb 13.

Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour C, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315:801–10 Available from: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2492881 . Cited 2021 Aug 26.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Bonet M, Nogueira Pileggi V, Rijken MJ, Coomarasamy A, Lissauer D, Souza JP, et al. Towards a consensus definition of maternal sepsis: results of a systematic review and expert consultation Reproductive Health. BioMed Cent. 2017;14:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-017-0321-6 . Available from: https://reproductive-health-journal.biomedcentral.com/articles . Cited 2021 Aug 26.

R Core Team. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Available from: www.R-project.org . 2021. Cited 2023 Feb 21.

Viechtbauer W. Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36(3):1–48 Available from: https://www.jstatsoft.org/index.php/jss/article/view/v036i03 . Cited 2023 Apr 27.

DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177–88 Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3802833/ . Cited 2023 Apr 27.

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Vandenbroucke JP, Von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):1628–54.

von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 2014;12(12):1495–9.

Cuschieri S. The STROBE guidelines. Saudi J Anaesth. 2019;13(Suppl 1):S31–4 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30930717 . Cited 2023 May 15.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers’ to authors’ assessments - PMC. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4021422/ . Cited 2023 May 15.

Lo CKL, Mertz D, Loeb M. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers’ to authors’ assessments. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):45 Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC4021422/ . Cited 2023 May 15.

Sawadogo YA, Komboigo E, Kiemtore S, Zamane H, Ouedraogo I, Kain DP, et al. Les suppurations pariétales postcesariennes au Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Yalgado Ouedraogo, Burkina-Faso: aspects epidemiologiques, cliniques, thérapeutiques et pronostiques. Pan Afr Med J. 2019;32:1937–8688. https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2019.32.35.17167 . Cited 2024 Jan 8.

Ouédraogo CMR, Ouattara A, Sana A, Ouédraogo A, Kain DP, Komboigo E, et al. Les endométrites obstétricales au CHU-Yalgado Ouédraogo de Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso). À propos de la prise en charge d’une série de 102 cas. Bulletin de la Societe de Pathologie Exotique. 2016;109(5):334–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13149-016-0514-1 . Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/ . Cited 2023 May 1.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kiponza R, Balandya B, Majigo MV, Matee M. Laboratory confirmed puerperal sepsis in a national referral hospital in Tanzania: Etiological agents and their susceptibility to commonly prescribed antibiotics. BMC Infect Dis. 2019;19(1):690. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-019-4324-5 . Available from: https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/ . Cited 2021 Apr 15.

Biset S, Moges F, Endalamaw D, Eshetie S. Multi-drug resistant and extended-spectrum β-lactamases producing bacterial uropathogens among pregnant women in Northwest Ethiopia. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2020;19(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12941-020-00365-z . Available from: https://ann-clinmicrob.biomedcentral.com/articles/ . Cited 2023 May 1.

Admas A, Gelaw B, Belay T, Worku A, Melese A. Proportion of bacterial isolates, their antimicrobial susceptibility profile and factors associated with puerperal sepsis among post-partum/aborted women at a referral Hospital in Bahir Dar. Northwest Ethiopia Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2020;9(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-019-0676-2 Available from: https://aricjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/ Cited 2023 May 1.

Bako B, Audu BM, Lawan ZM, Umar JB. Risk factors and microbial isolates of puerperal sepsis at the University of Maiduguri Teaching Hospital, Maiduguri. North-eastern Nigeria Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;285(4):913–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-2078-4 . Available from: https://link.springer.com/article . Cited 2023 May 1.

Bebell LM, Ngonzi J, Bazira J, Fajardo Y, Boatin AA, Siedner MJ, et al. Antimicrobial-resistant infections among postpartum women at a Ugandan referral hospital. PLoS One. 2017;12(4):e0175456 Available from: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id= . Cited 2023 May 1.

Belete MA.Bacterial Profile and ESBL Screening of Urinary Tract Infection Among Asymptomatic and Symptomatic Pregnant Women Attending Antenatal Care of Northeastern Ethiopia Region. Infect Drug Resist. 2020;13:2579–92 Available from: https://www.dovepress.com/bacterial-profile-and-esbl-screening-of-urinary-tract-infection-among--peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-IDR . Cited 2023 May 1.

Majangara R, Chirenje ZM, Gidiri MF. The association of puerperal sepsis with HIV infection at two tertiary hospitals in Zimbabwe HHS Public Access. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019;144(1):67–72.

Gessese YA, Damessa DL, Amare MM, Bahta YH, Shifera AD, Tasew FS, et al. Urinary pathogenic bacterial profile, antibiogram of isolates and associated risk factors among pregnant women in Ambo town, Central Ethiopia: a crosssectional study. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2017;6(1). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29299306/ . Cited 2024 Jan 8.

Kifilie AB, Dagnew M, Tegenie B, Yeshitela B, Howe R, Abate E. Bacterial Profile, Antibacterial Resistance Pattern, and Associated Factors from Women Attending Postnatal Health Service at University of Gondar Teaching Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia. Int J Microbiol. 2018;2018. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29681942/ . Cited 2024 Jan 8.

Johnson B, Stephen BM, Joseph N, Asiphas O, Musa K, Taseera K. Prevalence and bacteriology of culture-positive urinary tract infection among pregnant women with suspected urinary tract infection at Mbarara regional referral hospital. South-Western Uganda BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021;21(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-03641-8 . Available from: https://bmcpregnancychildbirth.biomedcentral.com/articles/ . Cited 2023 May 1.

Velin L, Umutesi G, Riviello R, Muwanguzi M, Bebell LM, Yankurije M, et al. Surgical Site Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance After Cesarean Section Delivery in Rural Rwanda. Ann Glob Health. 2021;87(1):77–8. https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.3413 Available from: https://annalsofglobalhealth.org/articles/ . Cited 2023 May 1.

Kifilie AB, Dagnew M, Tegenie B, Yeshitela B, Howe R, Abate E. Bacterial Profile, Antibacterial Resistance Pattern, and Associated Factors from Women Attending Postnatal Health Service at University of Gondar Teaching Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia. Int J Microbiol. 2018;2018. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29681942/ . Cited 2024 Jan 8.

Global antimicrobial resistance and use surveillance system (GLASS) report: 2022. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240062702 . Cited 2023 Feb 13.

Download references

Clinical trial number

Not applicable.

This work was funded by the NIHR Professorship, NIHR300808 (DL). CC was also supported by an institutional training grant awarded as part of the Wellcome Strategic award number 206545/Z/17/Z to The Malawi-Liverpool- Research Programme (MLW), administered under the joint MLW/Kamuzu University of Health Sciences Training Committee. For the purpose of open access, the authors have applied a CC BY public copyright license to any author accepted manuscript version arising from this submission. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not those of the funders.

Author information

Charlotte Van der Veer and David Lissauer shared last authorship.

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Children’s and Women’s Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

Chikondi Chapuma, James Jafali, Andrew Weeks, Samantha Lissauer, Nicholas Feasey, Charlotte Van der Veer & David Lissauer

Malawi-Liverpool- Research-Programme, Blantyre, Malawi

Chikondi Chapuma, Edward J. M. Monk, James Jafali, Emily Beales, Samantha Lissauer, Charlotte Van der Veer & David Lissauer

Helse Nord Tuberculosis Initiative, Kamuzu University of Health Sciences, Blantyre, Malawi

Hussein H. Twabi, David Kulapani, Apatsa Selemani, Marriott Nliwasa, Luis Gadama, Tony Nyirenda & Chisomo Msefula

Department of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK

Nicholas Feasey

College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Catherine Dunlop

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

DL is the guarantor of this manuscript. DL, CC and CVD developed the research question. CC, CVD and AS devised the search strategy. CC, CVD, EJMM and EB performed data extraction and quality assessments of the papers. CC, HHT and JF performed the data analysis. AW, NF, SL, DK, LG, MN, CM, TN, CD and MKM made substantial contributions to the study design. CC and CVD drafted the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chikondi Chapuma .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and consent to participate, competing interests.

The authors declare 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

Supplementary 1. pubmed search strategy, supplementary 2. microsoft excel workbook of the newcastle ottawa assessment scale, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, 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 you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. 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-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Chapuma, C., Twabi, H.H., Monk, E.J.M. et al. The aetiology and antimicrobial resistance of bacterial maternal infections in Sub-Saharan Africa—a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Infect Dis 24 , 978 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-024-09855-3

Download citation

Received : 22 January 2024

Accepted : 02 September 2024

Published : 14 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-024-09855-3

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

• Maternal infections
• Antimicrobial resistance
• Sub-Saharan Africa

BMC Infectious Diseases

ISSN: 1471-2334

• General enquiries: [email protected]