TL;DR

Good peer reviews balance praise with constructive suggestions — don't be a doormat or a demolition crew
Focus on big-picture issues first (thesis, argument, organization), then smaller ones (grammar, word choice)
Use "I" statements: "I was confused when..." instead of "You did this wrong"
Always explain why something isn't working and suggest how to fix it
Your peer review grade often depends on how thoughtful your feedback is, not how nice you are

Why Peer Reviews Feel So Awkward

Let's address the elephant in the room: peer reviews are uncomfortable. You're reading someone's work — maybe a friend's, maybe a stranger's — and you're supposed to tell them what's wrong with it. That creates two common problems:

The Too-Nice Reviewer: "Great paper! I loved everything about it. Maybe just check for typos?" (Useless feedback that helps no one.)
The Accidental Bully: "This thesis makes no sense and your entire second paragraph is irrelevant." (Technically correct, but delivered like a punch to the face.)

Neither extreme is helpful. The goal is to be a thoughtful reader who helps your classmate make their paper better — while also demonstrating to your professor that you can think critically about writing.

Because here's the thing most students don't realize: your peer review is being graded too. Professors can tell the difference between a thoughtful review and one you dashed off in five minutes. Putting effort into your feedback helps both your classmate's paper and your own grade.

The Two-Pass Method

The most effective way to peer review is to read the paper twice:

First Pass: Read for Understanding

Read the entire paper without marking anything. Just try to understand what the writer is saying. Ask yourself:

What's the main argument?
Does the paper make sense as a whole?
What are your overall impressions?

Second Pass: Read for Feedback

Now read again with your pen (or cursor) ready. This time, you're looking for specific things to comment on. Use the feedback categories below.

What to Look For: The Feedback Hierarchy

Think of feedback in layers, from most important to least:

Layer 1: Big Picture (Most Important)

Thesis and Argument

Is there a clear thesis statement? Can you identify it?
Does the argument make sense? Is it logical?
Does the paper actually answer the assignment prompt?

Organization and Structure

Does each paragraph have a clear point?
Do paragraphs flow logically from one to the next?
Is the paper organized in a way that supports the argument?

Evidence and Support

Are claims backed up with evidence?
Is the evidence relevant and convincing?
Are there unsupported assertions?

Layer 2: Paragraph Level

Topic Sentences

Does each paragraph start with a clear topic sentence?
Do paragraphs stay focused on one main idea?

Transitions

Are transitions between paragraphs smooth?
Can you follow the writer's train of thought?

Analysis vs. Summary

Is the writer analyzing evidence or just presenting it?
Do they explain why evidence supports their point?

Layer 3: Sentence Level (Least Important for Peer Review)

Clarity

Are there confusing sentences?
Is the writing concise or wordy?

Grammar and Mechanics

Note patterns of errors, but don't copy-edit the entire paper
Focus on errors that affect meaning

Note: Most professors want you to focus on Layers 1 and 2. Spending your entire review fixing comma splices is a waste of everyone's time.

How to Write Your Comments

The Feedback Sandwich (But Better)

You've probably heard of the "feedback sandwich" — say something nice, give criticism, say something nice again. That's fine as a starting point, but here's a more sophisticated approach:

For each major piece of feedback:

Identify what you're commenting on (quote or reference the specific section)
Describe what you noticed as a reader (use "I" statements)
Explain why it matters
Suggest a possible solution or direction

Example of weak feedback:

"Your second paragraph is confusing."

Example of strong feedback:

"In your second paragraph, you mention three different theories — social learning theory, cognitive development, and behaviorism — but I wasn't sure how they all connect to your thesis about classroom management. It might help to focus on the one theory that most directly supports your argument and save the others for later paragraphs, or to add a sentence explaining how all three theories relate to your central point."

See the difference? The strong feedback is specific, explains the problem from the reader's perspective, and offers a concrete suggestion.

Phrases That Work (and Phrases That Don't)

Use These:

"I was confused when..."
"I wanted to know more about..."
"This section would be stronger if..."
"I noticed that..."
"One thing that really worked was..."
"Have you considered..."
"I think the argument would be more convincing if..."
"The strongest part of this paper is..."
"I lost track of the main argument around paragraph..."

Avoid These:

"This is wrong" (too blunt, no explanation)
"You need to fix this" (demanding without being helpful)
"I don't get it" (too vague — what specifically don't you get?)
"This is good" (too vague — what specifically is good and why?)
"You should have..." (sounds judgmental)
"Everyone knows that..." (dismissive)

Peer Review Template

If your professor doesn't provide a specific rubric, use this template:

Overall Impression

In 2-3 sentences, describe what the paper is about and your general reaction to it.

Thesis and Argument

What is the thesis? (Write it in your own words to check understanding)
Is the thesis clear, specific, and debatable?
Does the paper effectively support this thesis?

Organization

Does the paper flow logically?
Are there any sections that feel out of place?
Suggestions for reorganization (if any):

Evidence and Analysis

Which evidence was most convincing? Why?
Where does the paper need more evidence or deeper analysis?
Are sources used effectively?

Strongest Aspect

What's the best thing about this paper? Be specific.

Most Important Suggestion

If the writer could only change one thing, what should it be?

Additional Comments

Any other observations, questions, or suggestions.

Handling Common Awkward Situations

"The Paper Is Really Good and I Can't Find Anything Wrong"

No paper is perfect. If you can't find problems, you're not reading critically enough. Try these approaches:

Think about what's missing rather than what's wrong
Ask questions the paper doesn't answer
Suggest ways the argument could be even stronger
Look at the assignment rubric — what criteria could score higher?

"The Paper Is Really Bad and I Don't Know Where to Start"

Focus on the most important issues and limit yourself to 3-4 major suggestions. Don't try to fix everything. Start with:

Does the paper have a thesis? If not, that's priority #1.
Does it address the assignment prompt?
Is there any section that works well? Build from there.

"This Is My Friend's Paper"

Give them the same quality feedback you'd want. Sugar-coating doesn't help them improve, and they'll get a worse grade if they submit a paper with unaddressed issues. Real friends give honest (but kind) feedback.

"I Think They Used AI to Write This"

That's not your job to police. Focus on the writing quality itself. If something sounds generic or impersonal, you can say: "This section feels a bit generic — I'd love to hear more of your unique perspective on this."

"I Disagree With Their Argument"

Great! Disagreement can make for excellent feedback. But focus on the quality of the argument, not whether you agree with the position. You can say: "Your argument that X would be stronger if you addressed the counterargument that Y."

What Your Professor Is Actually Grading

When professors grade your peer review, they typically look for:

Thoughtfulness: Did you engage seriously with the paper?
Specificity: Did you reference specific parts of the paper?
Constructiveness: Did you offer suggestions, not just criticism?
Completeness: Did you address multiple aspects (thesis, organization, evidence)?
Helpfulness: Would this feedback actually help the writer improve?

A review that says "Great paper, no changes needed!" will get you a low peer review grade. A review that identifies specific strengths and provides targeted suggestions for improvement — that's what earns full marks.

The Secret Benefit of Peer Reviewing

Here's something most students don't realize: reviewing someone else's paper makes YOUR writing better. When you analyze another person's argument structure, evidence use, and writing style, you develop critical reading skills that directly improve your own papers.

You'll start noticing things like:

"Oh, this paragraph doesn't have a topic sentence — wait, do mine?"
"They didn't connect their evidence to their thesis — do I do that?"
"Their conclusion just repeats the introduction — is mine any better?"

Peer review is stealth writing instruction. Take it seriously and your own writing will improve as a side effect.

How Gradily Can Help

Peer reviews require you to articulate what makes writing effective — and that's a skill Gradily can help you develop. Use Gradily to:

Analyze paper structure and identify organizational issues
Compare arguments to assignment rubrics
Draft constructive feedback that's specific and actionable
Improve your own papers based on what you learn from reviewing others

Good peer reviewing makes you a better writer. Gradily helps you make the most of both sides of that equation.

Quick Peer Review Checklist

Before you submit your review, make sure you've:

Read the paper at least twice
Identified the thesis and checked if it's clear
Commented on organization and flow
Noted both strengths AND areas for improvement
Referenced specific parts of the paper (not just general comments)
Offered suggestions, not just criticisms
Used respectful, constructive language
Checked that your feedback addresses the assignment requirements
Given feedback you'd want to receive on your own paper

The best peer reviews come from a place of genuine helpfulness. You're not grading the paper — you're helping a fellow student make it better. That mindset shift makes all the difference.

Editorial Standards

How to Write a Peer Review for a Classmate's Paper