Peer Review and Corrective Feedback to Improve the Quality of Students’ Article Writing

Teguh Budiharso


The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of peer review and corrective feedback on the quality of scientific article writing of the students, either partially or simultaneously. The research design was a correlation. The research sample was 85 English education students at Mulawarman Samarinda. The process of collecting data was a survey method with the help of google forms. Data analysis was operated using SPSS application. Results show the following. First, there is a significant effect of peer review on the quality of student scientific writing with an R2 of 0.392. Peer review contributes to the quality of student scientific papers by 39.2%. Second, corrective feedback has a significant effect on the quality of student scientific writing, with an R2 of 0.615. This means that corrective feedback has an effect of 61.5% on improving the quality of student scientific work. Third, there is an effect of peer review and corrective feedback together on the quality of student scientific writing with an R2 of 0.638. This means that peer review and corrective feedback together contribute to the quality of student writing by 63.8%.


corrective feedback, peer review, quality of writing

Full Text:

Download PDF


Abadikhah, S., & Ashoori, A. (2012). The effect of written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ performance after collaborative output. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(1), 118-125.

AbuSeileek, A. F. (2013). Using track changes and word processors to provide corrective feedback to learners in writing. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(4), 319-333

Afraz, S., & Ghaemi, H. (2012). The effect of focused written corrective feedback of contrastive analysis on EFL learners’ acquisition of verb tenses. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the World, 2(4), 48-61

Aghajanloo, K., Mobini, F., & Khosravi, R. (2016). The effect of teachers’ written corrective feedback types on intermediate EFL learners’ writing performance. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 7(3), 28-37

Ahmadi-Azad, S. (2014). The effect of coded and uncoded written corrective feedback types on Iranian EFL learners' writing accuracy. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(5), 1001-1008.

Amirghassemi, A., & Saeidi, M. (2013). The effect of scaffolded vs. non-scaffolded written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ written accuracy. World Applied Sciences Journal, 22(2), 256-263.

Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers think is right and why. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 95-127.

Aydawati, E. N., Rukmini, D., Mujiyanto, J., & Fitriati, S. W. (2022). Korelasi antara Peer Review Online dengan Gaya Belajar Siswa di Kelas Academic Writing. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pascasarjana (PROSNAMPAS), 5(1), Article 1.

Bakri, H. (2015). The role of individual differences in second language writing corrective feedback. Arab World English Journal, 6(4), 245-259.

Basrowi & Maunnah, B. (2019) The Challenge of Indonesian Post Migrant Worker's Welfare, JARLE, 10(4),

Basrowi & Utami, P. (2019) Legal Protection To Consumers of Financial Technology in Indonesia. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, Volume IX Issue 4(43), Summer 2019.

Benson, S., & DeKeyser, R. (2019). Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy. Language Teaching Research, 23(6), 702–726.

Best, K., Jones-Katz, L., Smolarek, B., Stolzenburg, M., & Williamson, D. (2015). Listening to our students: An exploratory practice study of ESL writing students' views of feedback. TESOL Journal, 6(2), 332-357.

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118.

Blommaert, J. (2013). Writing as a sociolinguistic object. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 17(4), 440-459.

Bohannon J. (2013). “Who’s Afraid of Peer Review?” Science, 342(6154):60-65.

Chen, S., Nassaji, H., & Liu, Q. (2016). EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback: A case study of university students from Mainland China. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1(5). doi:10.1186/s40862-016-0010-y

Daneshvar, E., & Rahimi, A. (2014). Written corrective feedback and teaching grammar. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136, 217-221.

Ebadi, E. (2014). The effect of focused meta-linguistic written corrective feedback on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ essay writing ability. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(4), 878-883.

Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.

Escudero, I., Fuertes, N., & López, L. (2019). Paraphrasing Strategy in EFL Ecuadorian B1 Students and Implications on Reading Comprehension. English Language Teaching, 12(1), 56–66.

Falagas, ME. (2007). “Peer Review in Open Access Scientific Journals.” Open Medicine, 1(1): 49-51.

Farooq, M. S., Uzair-Ul-Hassan, M., & Wahid, S. (2020). Opinion of Second Language Learners about Writing Difficulties in English Language. South Asian Studies, 27(1), Article 1.

Hartley, J. (2008) Academic Writing and Publishing: A Practical Guide. Routledge.

Hashemifardnia, A., Namaziandost, E., & Sepehri, M. (2019). The Effectiveness of Giving Grade, Corrective Feedback, and Corrective Feedback-Plus-Giving Grade on Grammatical Accuracy (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 3463040).

Huisman, B., Saab, N., van den Broek, P., & van Driel, J. (2019). The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: A Meta-Analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 863–880.

Irawati, N, (2015) Pengaruh Kompetensi dan Independensi Auditor terhadap Kualitas Audit pada Kantor Akuntan Publik di Makasar. Skripsi. Makasar: Universitas Hasanuddin

Kumar, M. (2009). “A Review of the Review Process: Manuscript Peer-review in Biomedical Research.” Biology and Medicine, 1(4): 1-16.

Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (2006). The ‘Academic Literacies’ Model: Theory and Applications. Theory into Practice Fall, 45(4), 368-377.

Leung, C. (2015). Additional/Second language academic literacies: Grounding pedagogy in language practices. Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Springer.

Liumbruno, GM., Velati C., Pasaualetti P., Franchini M. (2012). “How to Write a Scientific Manuscript for Publicatíon.” Blood Transfuse, 11(2): 217-226.

Lucey, B. (2013). “Peer Review: How to Get It Right - 10Tips.” The Guardian. Web. http://www

Martin-Jones, M., & Jones, K. (2000). ‘Introduction’ to Multilingual Literacies: Comparative Perspectives on Research and Practice. John Benjamin’s

Murray, Rowena, and Moore, S (2006) The Handbook of Academic Writing: A Fresh Approach. Open University Press

Nygaard, L.P. (2015) Writing for Scholars: A Practical Guide to Making Sense and Being Heard. Second Edition. Sage Publications.

Sartika, D., & Arriyani, N. (2020). Enhancing Students Writing Skill To Write Descriptive Text Using Peer Review And Free Writing Techniques. English Community Journal, 4(2), Article 2.

Schley, D. (2009).”Peer Reviewers Satisfied with System.” Times Higher Education. from

Sillvia, P.J. (2007) How to Write a Lot: A Practical Guide to Productive Academic writing. American Psychological association.

Simons-Morton, B., Abraido-Lanza AF., Bernhardt JM., Schoenthaler A., Schnitzer A., Allegerante JP. (2012). Demystifying Peer Review, 39(1): 3-7.

Spier, R. (2002). “The History of the Peer-review Process.” Trends Biotechnol, 20(8): 357-358.

Steingraber, S. (1985). “Guidelines For Writing Scientific Papers”. Honors Organismal Biology Laboratory Manual.ícPapers.pdf

Strret, B.V. (2015). Academic Writing: Theoru and Pratice, Journal of Education Issues, 1(2), 2015.

Street, B. (2000). ‘Literacy Events and Literacy Practices’ in Multilingual Literacies: Comparative Perspectives on Research and Practice (pp. 17-29). In M. Martin-Jones & K. Jones (Eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s.

Sulistyo, H. (2015) Peer review untuk Kantor Akuntan Publik, (

Sulistyo, H. (2016) Summary of the Nature, Objectives, Scope, Limitation of, and procedures performed in system and engagement reviews and quality control materials and continuing Professional Education Program reviews (as Referred to in a peer review report).

Swoger, B. (2014). “Post Publication Peer-review: Everything Changes, and Everything Stays the Same”. Scientific Americanblogs.

Ware, M. (2008). “Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives.” PRC Summary Papers, 4:4-20.

Wahyuni, S. (2017). The Effect of Different Feedback on Writing Quality of College Students with Different Cognitive Styles. Dinamika Ilmu, 17(1), 39–58.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
IJELTAL (Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics) by is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.


Abstracting and Indexing



Contact Us: IJELTAL (Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics;

Address: Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Islam Negeri Sultan Aji Muhammad Idris Samarinda

Jl. H.A.M. Rifadin, Samarinda, Kalimantan Timur, Indonesia. Email: