Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35800248›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2022

Online peer editing: effects of comments and edits on academic writing skills.

Han Zhang, Galina Shulgina, Mik Fanguy, Jamie Costley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Han ZhangNational Research University Higher School of Economics, Institute of Education, Myasnitskaya Ulitsa, 20, Moscow, 101000, Russia.
Galina ShulginaNational Research University Higher School of Economics, Institute of Education, Myasnitskaya Ulitsa, 20, Moscow, 101000, Russia.
Mik FanguyEFL Department, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), 291 Daehak-ro, Guseong-dong, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, South Korea.
Jamie CostleyNational Research University Higher School of Economics, Institute of Education, Myasnitskaya Ulitsa, 20, Moscow, 101000, Russia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although the effects of online peer editing have been studied from a number of perspectives, it remains unclear how giving and receiving comments and edits affect student academic writing performance. The current study examined the influence of these aspects of peer editing on student academic writing performance in higher education during online peer editing. Participants were 76 students engaged in peer editing of one another's work in a graduate scientific writing course at a Korean university. The relationships between the giving and receiving of comments and edits, and student performance on their writing tasks were analyzed. Results showed that there is a positive correlation between the number of comments received and the student's writing score, whereas receiving edits had the opposite effect and was associated with lower student performance. Furthermore, no relationship was found between giving comments or edits and writing performance. These results add to the field's understanding of how specific elements of peer editing can impact students' performance.

Indexed as

Academic writingCommentsEditsOnline collaborative learningPeer feedback

Identifiers

PMID35800248
PMCPMC9254337

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.