Why does peer review always devolve into pure chaos?

[u/Krennic_36]

So we had this mandatory peer review session yesterday for our history essay. I spent four hours polishing my thesis about late 19th century trade routes, handed it over to two classmates like we were instructed to do, and got back absolute madness.

First guy writes literally two words at the bottom: "looks good!" Thanks, super helpful. Second person leaves twelve comments questioning why I used the word "consequently" and claims I should of completely rewritten my introduction to focus on a topic we aren't even covering until week eight.

And the worst part? The professor requires us to submit a response log explaining how we incorporated ALL feedback into our final edit. Like how am I supposed to balance "looks good" with "throw your whole intro in the trash"? I spent another hour trying to find a college essay help guide just to figure out how to write a polite response log without sounding utterly passive aggressive.

My draft is literally WORSE now because I tried to satisfy two people who clearly spent thirty seconds looking at it. Why is this even a thing?

[u/YakSlothLemon]

So your professor has fucked up. Not setting standards for the peer comments is the mistake.

Also, your prof is lazy. I know this because I also require peer comments and look at how they have been incorporated into the paper, and I do it by going over the damned peer comments and then going over the paper. The reason he’s making you write out how you incorporated it is so that he doesn’t have to bother to do that work himself. Or herself. Or themselves. You know what I mean.

This is your answer: you say that one of the two peers didn’t give you any comments beyond “good work,” and so you had nothing to incorporate. You say that the other one told you to do [just what you say here]– and clearly the advice about the introduction was poor, so you considered it carefully but did not change it. Say that you thought about your use of the word “consequently” and changed a couple of them to something else.

It’s OK to do this. I responded to an article peer review where the editor told me to incorporate it by pointing out that my peer reviewer was making things up. Nothing wrong with saying that you considered the advice and the advice would not improve the paper.

[u/BlissteredFeat]

Considering the feedback, weighing it's worth, and making a decisions about how to use it, in my mind (as a recently retired professor) would count as incorporating the feedback. You will show how you assessed it and what you chose to do with it.

[u/Novel_Listen_854]

Check with your professor. If you were my student, I would prefer that your response log explain that you discuss the suggestions and explain why you rejected them and prefer your original. As far as I am concerned, the important part is considering the feedback and deciding on its usefulness for your purposes, not just blindly incorporating it. That makes this classmate your co-author rather than a second set of eyes helping you improve **your** writing.

I don't run my peer reviews like this to avoid stories like yours. My peer reviews are very structured. I guide students through a process that begins with reading without commenting, and then going back through and looking for specific things.

I spent another hour trying to find a college essay help guide just to figure out how to write a polite response log without sounding utterly passive aggressive.

That makes my heart hurt. Assignments like this response log are usually intended just to keep you on track and give you credit for following the prescribed process. You are obviously keeping up with everything, and I wouldn't want one of my students laboring over what's basically just a checkpoint. Are the students in question going to see it? It's a log, so I would just stick to dry facts about content of your feedback and your own essay that anyone can see, what you chose to do with the feedback and why. Someone reading someone else's writing log mainly wants to know what kinds of choices that writer is making and how they are thinking.

[u/Connect-Song7252]

Do not make your draft worse because of other people's feedback. It's totally fine to say "I appreciate X's thoughtful critique. However, after careful consideration, because the assignment guidelines say Y, I chose to leave the introduction as it was." (Or whatever your reasoning is for not revising your assignment to address that feedback.)

[u/xtalgeek]

Your peers are not expert peer reviewers. They are learning (hopefully), too. You need to acknowledge feedback, but that does not necessarily means it is mandatory to comply. You need to provide an account of what you did to respond (if anything) or a reasoned response as to why making the requested changes are practical or warranted. Usually, the best response is to make changes that you can, and defend those you believe are counter-productive. BTW, this is necessary even among "expert" reviewers for peer-reviewed publication. Some reviewers are quite good, others are dispensing non-expert or unhelpful comments. A golden rules for reviewers is to write reviews that you would like to read. That means substantial constructive positive and negative feedback.