Multiple peer reviews produced greater improvement between draft and final paper than a single expert reviewer in a SWoRD evaluation¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr3·q3
Currency · newest study 2009 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? In a controlled experiment with 28 students, the greatest improvement between draft and final paper occurred when the author received multiple peer reviews, and the least improvement occurred with a single expert reviewer. → Luxton-Reilly 2009
Evidence¶
Luxton-Reilly 2009¶
Luxton-Reilly, A. (2009). A systematic review of tools that support peer assessment. Computer Science Education, 19(4), 209-232. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993400903384844
q3 · i? · review · r3
A controlled experiment within the SWoRD evaluation compared "a single expert reviewer, single peer reviewer and multiple peer reviewers" with 28 students in a research methods course. The greatest improvement between draft and final paper occurred with multiple peer reviews. No effect size is printed.
"An evaluation of SWoRD was conducted with 28 students in a research methods course. A controlled experiment comparing a single expert reviewer, single peer reviewer and multiple peer reviewers showed the greatest improvement between draft and final paper occurred when the author received multiple peer reviews, and the least improvement occurred with a single expert reviewer."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Peer Feedback Improves Writing — a broader claim this one bears on
- The quality of feedback students give peers predicts gains in their own work, but no recorded study isolates a causal benefit of the assessor role — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
multiple-peer-reviews-beat-single-expert-reviewer-sword |
title |
Multiple peer reviews produced greater improvement between draft and final paper than a single expert reviewer in a SWoRD evaluation |
description |
Multiple peer reviews produced greater improvement between draft and final paper than a single expert reviewer in a SWoRD evaluation |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2009 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-16 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — luxton-reilly-2009 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.