145
Chapter 8: Revision and Peer Review
Davida Charney, a researcher who studies rhetoric and writers’ processes, makes the following
observations on the unique difficulties of writing:
Compared to other skills, writing is unusual in that more experienced writers tend
to invest greater time and effort than do inexperienced ones. Usually, practicing a skill
over and over makes it more “automatic,” reducing the time and effort needed to execute
the skill successfully. But in the case of academic writing, this kind of automaticity is
largely confined to the physical techniques of handwriting or typing. Few writing
situations are so formulaic that they become completely automatic. As a result, some
people who do significant amounts of writing report that they find it difficult—especially
in situations where much is at stake…. It is important for students to know that writing is
often hard work—that they are not necessarily doing anything wrong and are not
deficient in some essential gift or genius if words do not flow immediately or easily from
their fingers […].
Experienced writers’ processes seem to be recursive; drafting can lead to more
planning, as can revising. However, different writers prefer different starting points and
different ways of proceeding—some spew and revise, some gradually expand lists and
outlines, some write the easiest part first. Most experienced writers spend some time
planning before writing out drafts with connected prose. They think about the rhetorical
situation early and at many points while writing. In deciding how to go about writing the
text and what to include, they also reflect on their previous experience with similar texts
and make provisional decisions about what writing strategies to use. They are more
willing to reconsider their strategies, their plans, and their texts along the way. They seek
feedback at various points, some talking out their ideas in the early planning process,
others waiting to show a fairly complete draft to others.
Charney, Davida. “Teaching Writing as a Process.” Strategies for Teaching First-Year Composition. Ed.
Duane Roen, Veronica Pantoja, Lauren Yena, Susan K. Miller, Eric Waggoner. Urbana, IL: National
Council for Teachers of English, 2002. 92-96.
Charney’s comments make clear that writing is hard work and that experienced writers typically
spend more—not less—time planning, revising, reflecting and seeking feedback than
inexperienced ones. This chapter focuses on strategies critics use to reflect on their drafts and to
revise them based upon feedback and conversations they have with other critics.
Chapter 8: Revision and Peer review
©2011 Wolfe & Wilder
146
Global vs. Local Revision
Some compelling research suggests that students and instructors do not always understand the
term “revision” in that same way. Nancy Sommers interviewed college freshmen and more
experienced writers about their revision strategies. She found that student writers tended to
describe revision as a matter of reconsidering word choices and correcting mistakes. For
instance, one typical student told Sommers that when revising
I just review every word and make sure that everything is worded right. I see if I am
rambling; I see if I can put a better word in or leave one out. Usually when I read what I
have written, I say to myself, “that word is so bland or so trite,” and then I go [to the]
thesaurus.
In general, Sommers found that student writers were focused on words when revising. Many
students were particularly concerned about repeating particular words and phrases and revised
primarily to replace such repetitive phrasings with more unique words. In other words, students’
revision was primarily concerned with the question can I find a better word or phrase?
In contrast to the word-focused of the student writers, more experienced writers saw revision as
finding the form or the shape of their arguments. These experienced writers told Sommers
[Revising] means taking apart what I have written and putting it back together again. I
ask major theoretical questions of my ideas, respond to those questions, and think of
proportion and structure, and try to find a controlling metaphor. I find out which ideas
can be developed and which should be dropped. I am constantly chiseling and changing
as I revise.
My first draft is usually very scattered. In rewriting, I find the line of argument. After the
argument is resolved, I am much more interested in word choice and phrasing.
I have learned from experience that I need to keep writing a first draft until I figure out
what I want to say. Then in a second draft, I begin to see the structure of an argument and
how all the various sub-arguments which are buried beneath the surface of all those
sentences are related
For these experienced writers, revising involves reconsidering content and organization. They
revise in order to clarify their thesis, they delete and insert new ideas, they refine arguments and
sub-arguments, and they reorder major sections of their essays. Even when these experienced
writers make smaller changes to words or phrases, these changes often affect the overall thesis of
their essay.
We call the type of revision the experienced writers describe global revision to distinguish it
from the local revision students tended to implement. Global revision involves not just small
changes to words and phrasing, but also substantive changes to the overall content and
organization of arguments. We recognize global revision when the changes to an essay would
affect our overall summary of its argument.
Chapter 8: Revision and Peer review
©2011 Wolfe & Wilder
147
As you revise your literary analyses, we advise that you move beyond changes that affect
wording and style and instead experiment with more radical and thorough approaches to revising
than you may be used to doing. At first it may seem odd, even frightening, to alter a draft that
already looks complete. However, if you are willing to reconsider and change your arguments,
you should find the risk of revision yields exciting rewards. Your claims may become more
interesting, your evidence stronger, and your arguments more persuasive, even to yourself.
Sommers, Nancy. "Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers," College Composition
and Communication, 31 (1980): 378-388. Print.
For Discussion:
 What does the word “revision” mean to you?
 What is your typical revision process? How does it compare to the student or expert
writers’ comments above?
How to Revise Globally
Global revision requires thoughtful planning and a willingness to go back to the drawing board
and reconsider your thesis and other arguments. There is a very strong link between global
revision and the planning and thesis-development strategies we discussed in Chapter 6 (Thesis
and Organization). In fact, we recommend that you think of revision and planning as parallel
activities that you revisit continually throughout the writing process. As Charney explains
above, writing a complex argument should be a recursive process in which you continually move
back and forth among planning, drafting and revising.
One of the best ways to do the rethinking of your argument that global revision requires is to
receive feedback from your peers and instructor. We will discuss giving and receiving feedback
in detail below. However, you also need some techniques to implement this feedback and reenvision your argument from the ground up. We provide three techniques here to help you with
this rethinking.
Revision Technique 1: Outline or Reverse Outline
We introduced the reverse outline in Chapter 6. Most experienced writers develop an outline of
their main arguments at some point in their writing process. Some writers begin with an outline
of their arguments, spending substantial time fleshing out and organizing what they want to say
before they start drafting connected prose. Other writers prefer to freewrite or create a rough,
rough draft of their ideas and then construct an outline from these initial drafts.
No matter when you create an outline, you should try to create an argumentative rather than a
topical outline. A topical outline is a list of topics you plan to address in your essay while an
argumentative outline lists the key arguments and subarguments you need to support. While a
topical outline can help you organize informational and other types of texts, an argumentative
outline is necessary to help you think through your ideas and develop a complex argument that
readers can follow with minimal difficulty.
Figure 8.1 distinguishes between topical and argumentative outlines.
Chapter 8: Revision and Peer review
©2011 Wolfe & Wilder
148
Topical Outline
I. Thesis
II. Grierson family
a. House
b. Father
c. Cousins
III. Town and slavery
a. Colonel Sartoris
b. Servants
c. Tobe
IV. Town and tradition
a. Taxes
b. Funeral
V. Homer Barron
a. Yankee
b. Change
Argumentative Outline
THESIS: “Rose” shows struggle to maintain Southern past in face
of change
1. Grierson family represents southern aristocracy
-- house represents pride and wealth
-- father’s horsewhip represents superiority
-- “noblesse oblige” restricts and imprisons Emily
2. Just as Griersons guard their family past reputation, the town
guards past customs of slavery.
-- Col. S.’s edict is treated as a source of pride for town
-- Blacks appear in positions of servitude
-- Blacks (including Tobe) are silent
3. Townspeople secretly approve of Miss E’s adherence to tradition
-- they approve her refusal to pay taxes
-- refer to her as “monument” and “idol” suggesting
respect/worship for past.
4. Homer’s corpse shows biggest attempt to hold onto past
-- Yankee represents change
-- his death represents desire to prevent change
-- but ironically keeping his body preserves change
Figure 8.1: Topical vs. Argumentative Outline of “Preserving the Past in ‘A Rose for
Emily’” (from exercise 6.3).
The topical outline in Figure 8.1 focuses on the subjects or topics addressed in the essay. It uses
a very formal outline format, which you may have been taught to associate with outlines in
previous classes. It also gives us almost no information that can help us judge whether this essay
meets any of the criteria of a literary analysis.
By contrast, the argumentative outline in the second column focuses on the claims and evidence
used to support the thesis. We can tell from this outline whether the main arguments are
debatable, whether they help define the text’s meaning and whether the essay will help us see the
story’s complexity. We can tell whether the arguments and subarguments fit together and we
can make judgments about whether a skeptical audience might find the evidence persuasive. The
format is casual but informative. The outline is intended for the writer’s own use.
Once you have created an outline of your essay’s main arguments, you should begin questioning
it to discover logical gaps and inconsistencies, incomplete arguments, claims that need more
support, and arguments that need to be dropped. Questions that you might ask of your outline
include:
 Are my arguments interesting and debatable? Would my arguments or evidence point out
something new to my classmates? Could someone in my class disagree with these
arguments?
Chapter 8: Revision and Peer review
©2011 Wolfe & Wilder
149
If “no” then do you need to
o Add new arguments that readers will find interesting or debatable?
o Delete an argument that does not really say anything new or debatable?
o Move an argument or claim that might be “buried” in my text (e.g., a claim that
appears in the middle of a paragraph or in the last paragraph of the essay) to a
more prominent position?
o Replace an argument with one that better illustrates the text’s complexity?
o Return to the text to discover new arguments?
 Do all of my arguments “fit” together? Does each argument build on or extend the previous
one?
If “no” then do you need to
o Add a new argument to help fill in a logical gap?
o Delete an argument because it does not fit your overall line of reasoning or
repeats an argument you made previously?
o Move an argument so that individual claims or subarguments more clearly build
upon one another?
o Replace an argument with one that more precisely communicates what you want
to say?
o Return to the text to discover new evidence or claims that might help connect or
refine your ideas?
 Are all of my arguments fully supported? Would a skeptical reader find enough evidence
here to be persuaded that my argument has merit? Is there any evidence a skeptical reader
would question or reject?
If “no” then do you need to
o Add new evidence to better support your claims?
o Delete an argument because it doesn’t have sufficient support—or delete existing
evidence that doesn’t really support your argument?
o Move evidence so its relationship to the argument it supports is clarified?
o Replace your interpretation of the evidence with one that will better help readers
better understand how the evidence supports your argument?
o Return to the text to discover new evidence or determine whether there is really
sufficient evidence to support your argument?
For instance, the argumentative outline for “Preserving the Past in ‘A Rose for Emily’” in Figure
8.1 reveals some logical weaknesses in the essay. For instance, the third bullet under argument 1
(“noblesse oblige” restricts and imprisons Emily) does not clearly support the claim that the
Grierson family represents Southern aristocracy. The writer has multiple choices here:
 He could replace his interpretation of this evidence with one that more precisely focuses on
the aristocratic nature of the phrase “noblesse oblige.”
 He could add a new paragraph to the essay arguing that this obsession with past glory
imprisons Miss Emily and move this evidence to the new paragraph.
We might also use this outline to question whether some of the arguments presented in the final
paragraph could be moved or introduced earlier in the essay to make the argument more
Chapter 8: Revision and Peer review
©2011 Wolfe & Wilder
150
complex. For instance, the final sentence of the analysis reveals a central irony of the story: the
very thing that Miss Emily seeks to preserve and lock up for herself also represents the change
she wants to avoid. Mentioning this argument in the thesis and returning to the text to discover
other similar ironies might help this writer make an even more complex argument.
For Discussion:
 Have you used outlines to help you plan and revise your previous essays? How
helpful were these outlines? How do you think you might have used the outline
differently to help you better re-see and change your arguments?
Revision Technique 2: One-Paragraph Summary
Instead of (or in addition to) creating an outline, some writers like to develop a one-paragraph
summary of their main arguments. Such a summary is particularly useful for revising longer
essays for which an outline listing main arguments can become unwieldy. One major advantage
of writing a summary over an outline is that a summary requires you to develop transitions
between main ideas and can be useful for checking the overall “flow” or coherence of your
argument.
The professor who completed the think-aloud protocols of Silko’s “The Man to Send
Rainclouds” to us she finds such a summary helpful
because if I can’t figure out my argument in one paragraph, that means I need to do more
defining of my thesis and my argument. And sometimes also writing that paragraph
gives me a good idea because I’m forced to make logical connection between the parts of
my argument in one paragraph. I can go back and, in fact, reorganize based on that
paragraph.
A one-paragraph summary of “Preserving the Past in ‘A Rose for Emily’” might read as follows:
“A Rose for Emily illustrates the South's struggle to maintain its aristocratic and racist
past in the face of inevitable change. The Grierson family, with its fancy house and
domineering father, represents Southern aristocracy. The family’s refusal to allow Emily
to marry illustrates their inability to accept that their family’s status and power has
declined. This stubborn refusal to let go of past power is paralleled by the town’s
inability to let go of the customs and habits of slavery. Thus, even as the town changes
with new ideas, money, and customs brought in from the North, it holds onto its past,
which Miss Emily, in all of her former prestige and current decay, represents. The town
indulges and secretly admires Miss Emily’s refusal to move into the future. Ironically,
however, what Miss Emily (and the town by extension) ends up holding onto is the idea
of change itself
This one-paragraph summary provides the writer with new insights into his ideas because it
challenges him to phrase arguments differently and make the connections between various parts
of his argument more explicit. For instance, this one-paragraph summary contains the argument
that The family’s refusal to allow Emily to marry illustrates their inability to accept that their
family’s status and power has declined. This argument is implied, but not fully articulated, in
Chapter 8: Revision and Peer review
©2011 Wolfe & Wilder
151
the essay. Thus, writing the one paragraph summary can help the writer articulate connections
and find arguments that need to be elaborated in the essay.
As the professor’s comments above emphasize, writing a one-paragraph summary is a good way
to re-envision your argument and make logical connections between the various parts of a
complex idea. Once these connections have been clarified in the summary, it can serve as a
blueprint for organizing the essay itself.
Revision Technique 3: Paragraph analysis
Our next revision technique involves working with the draft itself and carefully analyzing each
paragraph in relation to the thesis and then analyzing each sentence’s relationship to the
paragraph in which it appears. To implement this technique
 Examine each paragraph in relation to the thesis. Consider each paragraph in your
essay, summarize its main argument, and explain to yourself how it relates to the thesis you
have developed. Does the paragraph extend or support an argument clearly related to the
thesis?
If “no” then do you need to
o Revise the thesis?
o Delete the paragraph?
o Replace the paragraph with one that has a clearer connection to the thesis?
 Examine each paragraph in relation to other paragraphs. Consider each paragraph in
your essay and explain to yourself how it relates to the paragraphs that come before it. Does
it clearly support or extend the argument in the previous paragraph?
If “no” then do you need to
o Delete the paragraph because it repeats or does not clearly connect to the main
line of argument?
o Move the paragraph to a better location in the essay?
 Replace the paragraph with one that has a clearer connection to the
previous paragraph?
o Add a new paragraph or new material that can help articulate the connection
between the two arguments?
 Examine each sentence in relation to its paragraph. After examining each paragraph,
look at each sentence in your essay and explain to yourself the function of this sentence in
the paragraph. Is it elaborating or extending the paragraph’s main argument, providing
evidence, interpreting evidence, or transitioning to a new idea?
If “no” then do you need to
o Delete the sentence because it is not clearly related to the paragraph’s main
argument—or because it is “fluff” that does not add any new ideas?
o Move the sentence to a better location in the paragraph?
o Replace the sentence with one that has a clearer connection to the paragraph’s
main line of argument?
o Add a new sentence that can clarify how this sentence relates to other arguments
in the paragraph?
Chapter 8: Revision and Peer review
©2011 Wolfe & Wilder
152
Adapted from Butler, J. and M. Britt. “Investigating Instruction for Improving Revision of Argumentative Essays.”
Written Communication 28.1 (2011): 70-96. Web. 16 June 2011.
Deleting Text
Many people find writing so difficult or frustrating that they fervently avoid deleting text
that took so long to produce. However, when unrelated passages are left in, the reader is
taken in too many different directions, and the writing seems uncontrolled and chaotic.
More experienced writers are typically more comfortable than students with deleting text.
These writers have confidence that they will be able to produce additional text that is just
as good as what they are deleting and that better fits their line of argument. One writer
Nancy Sommers interviewed had this to say:
My cardinal rule in revising is never to fall in love with what I have written in a
first or second draft. An idea, sentence, or even a phrase that looks catchy, I don’t
trust. Part of this idea is to wait a while. I am much more in love with something
after I have written it than I am a day or two later. It is much easier to change
anything with time.
As this experienced writer makes clear, giving yourself some time away from your text
will increase your willingness to revise and to delete passages that really do not belong.
Think of your willingness to delete text as evidence that you are becoming a more mature
and thoughtful writer.
And of course, to implement this advice, you cannot wait until right before a deadline to
begin a writing project. Another hallmark of experienced writers is their tendency to work
on a project in regular, realistic chunks of time that allow enough time for breaks,
reflection, and getting feedback.
Receiving Feedback: Peer Review and the Critical Conversation
In addition to thinking critically about their own texts, experienced critics seek feedback from
other writers. In fact, feedback is so important to the writing process, before an essay can be
published in a professional journal, it must receive feedback from anonymous reviewers. In fact,
professional, academic journals are often referred to as peer-reviewed publications in order to
emphasize this review processes.
A critic who wants to publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal submits a copy of his or her
paper to the journal editor who sends it out to other critics who are unaware of the author’s
identity. These critics then write a review of the paper, recommending that it be accepted,
revised, or rejected and providing suggestions to help the writer revise. After the editors hear
back from the reviewers, they make a final decision on whether the paper should be published in
the journal. The reviewers’ responses and well as the editor’s own recommendations are then
anonymously submitted to the author. This process is called double-blind peer review.
If the essay is accepted, the author is asked to revise in response to the reviewers’ comments. If
the reviewers recommended revision, the author revises the essay and it is again submitted
Chapter 8: Revision and Peer review
©2011 Wolfe & Wilder
153
anonymously to the reviewers who reread it and make a new recommendation to accept, reject,
or revise yet again.
For Discussion:
 Why do you think this peer review process was initiated? What purposes might it
serve?
 Does the peer review process influence who and what gets “heard” in the critical
conversation? How?
 Do you read an article differently if you know it comes from a peer reviewed journal?
Writing courses often ask students to act as peer reviewers of their classmates’ essays. However,
instead of providing the critically constructive feedback that is common in the professional peer
review process, student reviewers often refrain from making substantive suggestions for revision.
We believe classroom peer review will be more useful and helpful to both writers and reviewers
if it more closely resembles the “real world” practice of scholarly peer review. While the doubleblind submission process may not be possible (or necessary) in the classroom context, we
encourage you to evaluate your peers’ essays in terms of whether or not they would be
acceptable for publication in a journal of literary criticism written by and for literature students.
Your recommendations to your peers should provide them with advice for meeting the
expectations of readers familiar with the types of arguments critics make about literature. Letting
your peers know if you are persuaded by all their arguments, or what it would take to persuade
you if you are not, is some of the most useful feedback a writer can receive.
For Discussion:
 What possible benefits might there be for you in helping your classmates participate
in this conversation?
 What kind of feedback is most helpful to you as you seek to contribute to and be
heard in this conversation?
Exercise 8.1: The Peer Review Letter
Step 1: Swap essays with a classmate.
Step 2: Without holding or picking up a pen or pencil, read your partner’s draft through fully one time.
Step 3: Re-read your partner’s draft, this time with a pen or pencil in hand to mark the following:
a. Underline what you identify as the draft’s thesis statement, or central claim the entire paper seeks
to support. Often thesis statements include the major reasons that support the claim—reasons that
the paper goes on to flesh out and support with evidence. A thesis statement can be more than one
sentence.
b. When you notice one of the strategies of literary analysis that we have been discussing (e.g.,
surface/depth, patterns, paradox), label the strategy in the margin.
Chapter 8: Revision and Peer review
©2011 Wolfe & Wilder
154
c. Use a squiggly line to mark any words or phrases that do not seem appropriate to an academic
paper. Ideally, the style of an academic essay is formal, clear, calm, and controlled. Use of first
person, (e.g., “I”) is acceptable if it is in keeping with this style. The ideal style should neither be
too formal (for instance, a writer should not use “big” words just to sound academic) nor should it
be too casual (for instance, by using slang or by referring to the reader as “you”).
A note on grammar and spelling: At this point in the writing process we are not yet at the editing
stage. This peer review should be more concerned with the overall structure and effectiveness of
the argument. But you may be distracted by misspelled words or have questions about comma
usage. You can point out to your partner some editing concerns you spotted (by circling them), but
do not set out on a hunt for these types of concerns. We will address these concerns shortly, but
first we need to think about more substantive revision.
Step 4: Once you have completed a second reading, write a letter addressed to the paper’s writer that
encourages and helps the writer to revise the draft. Try to respond to some of the following prompts about
your partner’s draft in your letter. Your honest yet diplomatic responses are invaluable. Have confidence
in your reading skills and share your opinions of the draft’s strengths and weaknesses. If you are confused
by or, conversely, persuaded by aspects of the draft, chances are other readers will respond similarly. And
remember, if not persuaded by your review of the draft, your partner is not obligated to heed all of your
advice.
Your instructor will be looking to see that your peer review letter is well organized (it should prioritize
the advice you give—what are the most important things the writer should do?) and supported (you
provide good, specific reasons for the recommendations you make). This review is in many ways also an
argument—you need to persuade you readers that your reading has been careful and your
recommendations are sound.
1. Thesis: First, does the thesis make an interpretive claim? (The primary purpose of literary critical
analysis is to make an argument about meaning or significance, a definitional argument.) Second, do
you think the thesis is compelling and arguable? In other words, does it make a claim its audience
(which includes you and the rest of the class and other literary scholars) might find provocative,
illuminating, and one which some of us (without given the evidence and reasoning the paper
provides) might even want to counterargue? Why or why not?
2. Strategies of Literary Analysis: Which of the strategies of literary analysis that you identified in the
margins of the draft do you think are currently being used to the best persuasive effect? (In other
words, which of the strategies your partner tries to use are you most impressed by?) Why? Could the
writer use one or more of the strategies of literary analysis that we have been discussing to improve
this draft? Which? How?
3. Evidence: Are the claims made supported with sufficient evidence to be persuasive? Is there
evidence that is not discussed here that might be relevant? Which details from the text could be used
to develop ideas presented here further? Be specific—you can even point to page or line numbers.
4. Interpretive Analysis: Is the evidence presented explained, or does your partner occasionally
assume that the significance of the evidence to support a claim is self-evident? Where might your
partner step in and analyze the “data” (the text) more so that we will be certain to see in it what he or
she does?
5. Complexity: Does the draft consider complications, implications, and/or potential opposing
interpretations? How does the draft treat these complicating factors? How could it seek to treat these
factors more effectively or persuasively?
6. Organization: Is this a logical order for this paper’s argument? How would you describe the logic
of the arrangement (does it build towards greater and greater illumination, does it start with a “bang”
Chapter 8: Revision and Peer review
©2011 Wolfe & Wilder
155
by placing its most provocative arguments first, or is there some other logic such as following the
temporal sequence of the story?)? What effects on you as a reader does this arrangement of ideas
produce (do you get confused, lost, or follow easily?)? How might the arrangement of this draft be
improved in revision?
7. What do you think are currently this draft’s two greatest strengths?
8. What two things do you think this writer should take special care to attend to when revising this
draft?
Review
This chapter instructs you on how to make global revisions to your essays. Global revision
involves changing content and organization and elaborating on ideas to improve the essay’s line
of argument. Global revision should be distinguished from local revision that makes changes
primarily to improve the phrasing or wording of the essay.
We have introduced three strategies to help you see ways to globally revise your essay
 Create an argumentative outline of your essay’s main arguments
 Write a one-paragraph summary of your main argument
 Analyze each paragraph in your essay to assess its relationship to the thesis and its
relationship to other paragraphs; Analyze each sentence in your essay to assess whether
it is fulfilling a useful function in the paragraph
In addition, we have discussed the peer review process used in professional journals and
encouraged you to think of your own classroom peer reviews as serving a similar function for an
audience of advanced literature students.
Chapter 8: Revision and Peer review
©2011 Wolfe & Wilder
156
EXERCISE 8.2
Interview someone with more experience than you at writing literary and cultural analyses about his or
her process for writing such texts. Consider speaking with another literature professor in your school’s
English department, or a graduate student studying literature, or an undergraduate student soon to
graduate with a degree in English.
Ask this person to describe his or her usual process of writing a critical analysis of a text. For instance,
how do they get started? How much reading do they do before they start writing? Do they write outlines,
multiple drafts? Do they seek out reactions to drafts from readers? What are their goals in revision? How
often, and for how long, do they write?
Another useful interview method can be to ask for advice on reading and writing. Does this experienced
writer have suggestions for less experienced writers? What does this person look for when reading
analyses written by other critics? How would they describe a “good analytic essay”? Or what mistakes
can they warn you away from?
Write a summary of your interview for your instructor and plan to share with your class what you thought
was your most surprising or more useful finding.
Chapter 8: Revision and Peer review
©2011 Wolfe & Wilder