1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:03,416 [MUSIC PLAYING] 2 00:00:03,416 --> 00:00:07,820 3 00:00:07,820 --> 00:00:10,160 MATTHEW PAVESICH: For decades, the conservative critique 4 00:00:10,160 --> 00:00:12,650 of peer review has been that peer review amounts 5 00:00:12,650 --> 00:00:14,880 to the blind leading the blind. 6 00:00:14,880 --> 00:00:18,200 And I think that sells short our students' 7 00:00:18,200 --> 00:00:21,200 knowledge and their ability to interact with each other. 8 00:00:21,200 --> 00:00:24,083 While it's really great if peer review helps 9 00:00:24,083 --> 00:00:26,000 to make better papers, what peer review really 10 00:00:26,000 --> 00:00:28,010 does as it makes better writers. 11 00:00:28,010 --> 00:00:30,740 It's when you're digging into somebody else's paper, 12 00:00:30,740 --> 00:00:33,050 and thinking about what the criteria for the assignment 13 00:00:33,050 --> 00:00:34,730 should be, and the successful execution 14 00:00:34,730 --> 00:00:36,620 of an assignment, that you start to realize 15 00:00:36,620 --> 00:00:39,500 all these amazing critical thoughts about what you 16 00:00:39,500 --> 00:00:41,810 yourself have written, how it succeeds 17 00:00:41,810 --> 00:00:43,430 in the constraints of the assignment 18 00:00:43,430 --> 00:00:44,910 and so on and so forth. 19 00:00:44,910 --> 00:00:47,780 It also just means that questions come up 20 00:00:47,780 --> 00:00:50,750 every single time that I use peer review in my own classes 21 00:00:50,750 --> 00:00:53,612 that I can't answer immediately that we all-- that my students 22 00:00:53,612 --> 00:00:55,070 and I have to think about together. 23 00:00:55,070 --> 00:00:58,420 [MUSIC PLAYING] 24 00:00:58,420 --> 00:01:02,000