Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39660258›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2024

Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges.

Yuzhu Wei, Donghong Liu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

2 authors.

Yuzhu WeiSchool of Foreign Languages, Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
Donghong LiuSchool of Foreign Languages, Southeast University, Nanjing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Academic writing is paramount to students' academic success in higher education. Given the widely acknowledged benefits of peer feedback in diverse learning contexts, such as fostering a positive psychological mindset, there has been a growing interest in applying this approach to facilitate the development of academic writing. This study is launched to examine the primary features and findings of the studies that have investigated the benefits and challenges of the utilization of peer feedback in academic writing development. The methodology of this study incorporates a rigorous literature search methodology, encompassing database search, reference search, and manual search, which is subsequently followed by a content analysis of the selected studies. With the guidance of PRISMA 2020, a total of 60 related articles, spanning the period from 2014 to 2024, are selected through title screening, abstract screening and content screening, adhering to strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. The findings of this study reveal a growing global interest in peer feedback in academic writing, and highlight the need for future research on masters'/doctoral students and quantitative approaches to deepen understanding of its effects. Moreover, 16 distinct benefits of peer feedback in the academic writing context were delineated and subsequently categorized into five categories: affective benefits, cognitive benefits, behavioral benefits, social benefits, and meta-cognitive benefits. Furthermore, an analysis of the implementation challenges revealed 13 types of obstacles, which were traced to three primary sources: challenges originating from feedback receivers, those posed by feedback providers, and those stemming from the peer feedback settings. Based on these findings, several pedagogical and future research suggestions are proffered to guide both the practitioners and researchers.

Indexed as

academic writingaffective benefitsbenefits and challengespeer feedbackpsychological mindset

Identifiers

PMID39660258
PMCPMC11628301

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.