My Process of Editorial Review and Feedback (by Brian Compton)

Here are the steps, processes, and associated details involved in my practice of reviewing student writing assignments which parallel the content ofthe writing rubrics I use and provide to students:

Part 1: Working with the Science Writing Mentor:

  1. Student submits the first draft of each assignment to the Science Writing Mentor (i.e., Lynda Jensen) for preliminary review and feedback (draft version 1).
  2. Science Writing Mentor will review, edit, and comment upon the work and return it to the student with a revised filename as indicated below (draft version 2).
  3. Student will incorporate the edits and comments into a revised version (if required) and send that draft (draft version 3) to Brian for further review and feedback.
  4. Brian willreview, edit, and comment upon the work and return it to the student with a revised filename as indicated below (draft version 4), including either a) confirmation of completion of the assignment (if no further revisions are required), or b) additional feedback for further revision in which case see the following step.
  5. Student will incorporate the edits and comments into a revised version (if required) and send that draft (draft version 5) to Brian for further review and feedback.
  6. Brian will review the work and either a) confirm that it is complete, or b) indicate the need for further revision (to be repeated until the work is complete).

Part 2: Editorial Concepts and Methods:

A. File Naming Protocols:

  1. Open the electronic file (Microsoft [MS] Wordand PowerPoint are strongly encouraged and preferred) document and, if necessary, rename the file for improved identification and archiving purposes. For example, a first assignment in NESC 315, Traditional Ecological Knowledge, might be named thusly:
  2. Compton, B. NESC 315 Paper 1 1-16-15.docx (This indicates the author’s name, the course, the assignment, and the date of the particular document file in question.)
  3. Compton, B. NESC 315 Paper 1 1-20.15 (LJ).docx (This represents a subsequent draft which has been edited by TheScience Writing Mentor, i.e., Lynda Jensen, as indicated by “LJ” which is underlined above for emphasis. It also indicates the date she edited it which also is underlined for emphasis.)

B. Correctness (Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Word Choice):

  1. Run a spelling check using the “Spelling & Grammar” tool in the review toolbar in MS Word or the “Spelling” tool in MS PowerPoint. (The student should do this before submitting the work.) Note that I also visually check for spelling and grammar errors which may not all be detected by MS Word or PowerPoint. (Note that additional information about this is available through my instructional blog at

C. Plagiarism:

  1. Check for plagiarism using a free online plagiarism checker along with a comparison of language used in the writing against the cited references. This is combined with consideration of paraphrasing or the use of direct quotes and associated references. (Additional information on this topic is available at

D. Completeness & Concision (Formatting, Word or Page Length, References & Citations, etc.)

  1. Check for formatting as indicated for the assignment (e.g., formal research paper using APA style).
  2. Check to ensure that the paper satisfies the length requirement (approximately 10 pages, including separate pages for the title and reference pages). Please note that depending on the quality of the writing with respect to the assignment, I may exercise discretion in terms of adherence to this requirement. For example, if the paper is slightly less or more than 10 pages and is still clear, concise and complete, that paper will be regarded as satisfactory. However, I regard the minimum requirement as the the goal to work towards.

E. Coherence (& Control):

  1. Check to ensure that ideas are presented logically and in a unified manner with good flow, paragraph construction, sentence content, etc.

F. Clarity:

  1. Check to ensure that the assignment topic(s) and question(s) are addressed in a clear and unconfused manner and related directly to the stated assignment objective(s).

G. Content:

  1. Check to ensure that the writing shows evidence of full and complete comprehension of subject matter and ideas communicated are substantial and relevant.

My Process of Editorial Review and Feedback.docx