Being critical whilst remaining sensitive to your fellow student who wrote a 6SA is not always easy. Your comments should be carefully constructed so that the author fully understands what actions he or she needs to take to improve the argument. For example, generalized or vague statements should be avoided along with any negative comments which are not relevant or constructive.
Provide detailed comments to each sentence.
- Use the comment to the author as an opportunity to seek clarification on any unclear points and for further elaboration.
- Make suggestions as to how the author can improve clarity, conciseness, and the overall quality of a sentence.
- It is not your job to edit the paper for English, but it is helpful if you correct the English where the technical meaning is unclear.
Provide suggestions and advise in the section for general comments at the bottom of the review.
- You may disagree with the opinions presented in the 6SA, but you should allow them to stand, provided they are consistent with the case context.
- Remember that authors will welcome positive feedback as well as constructive criticism from you.
As a rule of thumb, aim to spend about 20 minutes on each review that you write.
A feature of the peergrade platform (where 6SA are submitted, allocated, and reviewed) is that you are able to evaluate and interact with the feedback you get. You get to say if the feedback was constructive and helpful, or if you have an issue with it. This ensures that you are assessed fairly while it also gives you an incentive for writing proper feedback.
Example
| Review Number | Review |
| 1 | Overall a great text. One could argue that the fourth sentence doesn’t seem to convey a real problem or challenge but I think it does in a way. |
| 2 | #1 check English: “the” sustainable business team #2 here you do not really state a strong and clear position; it is more like an additional part of the Intro. #3 check English: only purchasing form PT smart was suspended; also #2 lacks a position, here the supportive nature of #3 is not fully clear. #4 this is not really a challenge, or at least in this context not a problem related to #2 and #3. #5 I do not think this is a rebuttal, as this does not address the challenge described in #4. #6 the conclusion seems a bit out of the context, i.e. it does not directly follow from the argument. Overall there are minor grammatical issues, and the 6 sentences do not fully convey just 1 argument coherently. |
| 3 | Very well done! Deforastating is a word which doesn’t exist |
| 4 | How does an LCA help to “avoid having one of our suppliers do wrong to our high sustainability standards commitment”? Sentence #2 and #3 are not coherent. Also the rebuttal in #5 does not really answer the stated problem in #4 #6 Helps a lot getting across your point but it is longer than 20 words. |
| 5 | To #1: The theme of the text is stated (rainforest deforestation) but the topic of what Wilmar has done is not mentioned at all. Also, I think it doesn’t really give any motivation to the reader to read on since it’s kind of an attack, without stating the background information. To #2: OK, we don’t support sustainable palm-oil sources but what is your position? No statement is made about what you suggest on doing. The grammar is kind of unclear. When you say “at the moment we don’t’, we still support ….” It seems that you tried to separate two sentences with a comma. To #3: I am sorry but this is totally unrelated to the second sentence. If the position you infer in the second sentence is that Unilever is going against its statements (buying sustainable palm-oil), I don’t see how reminding the CEO of a general sustainability statement is relevant. I would try to link it more to the actual palm-oil case. There is no supportive reason for your position. To #4: The only thing I am missing here is the connection to the first sentence. You are mentioning neither palm-oil sources nor deforestation (issues stated in your introduction). To #5: I am personally not convinced by this “obligation” to the customers. I think you should give a higher importance to the effects this could have on the company. Remember Unilever wants to be sustainable, it’s not a charity organization. (I gave you 2 points anyway because this “convincing issue” is opinion based I believe.) To #6: This is good. General Suggestions: Your sentences convey the argument that Unilever should be true to its commitments in a general level for the “sake” of the customers and financial effects. However, you deviate a lot and firstly talk about deforestation, then give general comments the CEO said and most importantly, do not mention an actual action that should be taken. I am guessing that you want the CEO to stop buying from Wilmar (?) but you neither give a way this could be done nor state it explicitly. It seems unclear to me whether your approach is meant to give the CEO some overview or suggestions on what to do. Finally, I think some words (devastating, cheap (who said it’s cheaper?) are unnecessary. |
| 6 | #1: the objective of the message is clear (statement from Unilever) but the topic is rather vague (unsustainable encroachment). #5: The second part of the sentence is not very clear. Do you mean full traceability of palm oil? |
In the interactive part below, sort the good and the bad reviews into the appropriate boxes. Each number corresponds to the number in the review above.
The exercise above gives you an impression of the quality standards that we should adhere to. By writing reviews, you are not only a critical reader, but you can start to collaborate with the author.
