W6B. Academic Writing Style, Results Peer-Review

Author

Georgy Gelvanovsky

Published

March 19, 2026

1. Summary

1.1 Academic Writing Style

Academic writing style is a set of conventions that distinguish scholarly writing from everyday communication. These conventions exist not as arbitrary rules but because they serve the specific communicative goals of academic discourse: precision, credibility, objectivity, and reproducibility.

Before peer-reviewing a Results section—or any section of your literature review—it is essential to have a clear understanding of what academic writing style requires, so that your feedback is grounded in recognized standards rather than personal preference.

1.1.1 Formality

Academic writing is formal. This means:

  • Avoid contractions: write do not instead of don’t, it is instead of it’s.
  • Avoid colloquial expressions and idioms: instead of “a lot of studies,” write “numerous studies” or “a substantial body of research.”
  • Use complete sentences. Fragments (incomplete sentences) are not acceptable in academic prose.
  • Avoid first-person singular in most academic contexts unless the style guide or instructor explicitly permits it. In co-authored work, first-person plural (“we,” “our”) may be appropriate.
1.1.2 Objectivity

Academic writing is objective. This means:

  • Base claims on evidence, not personal feelings or opinions.
  • Avoid emotionally charged language (“remarkably,” “shockingly,” “unfortunately”).
  • Present multiple perspectives fairly before reaching a conclusion.
  • Avoid absolute statements unless fully supported by evidence. Use hedging language (may, suggests, indicates) to qualify claims appropriately.
1.1.3 Precision

Academic writing is precise. This means:

  • Define all specialized terms when first introduced.
  • Avoid vague language (“some researchers,” “many studies”) when specific numbers or citations are available.
  • Use the exact terminology of the field consistently. Do not alternate between synonyms (e.g., “autonomous vehicles” and “self-driving cars”) unless the distinction is deliberate and explained.
  • Ensure every claim is supported by a citation.
1.1.4 Cohesion and Coherence

A well-written academic text is cohesive (sentences connect smoothly to each other) and coherent (the overall argument is logically organized and easy to follow):

  • Use transition words and phrases to signal the relationship between ideas: however, moreover, in contrast, consequently, therefore.
  • Ensure each paragraph has a clear topic sentence that states its main point.
  • Avoid abrupt topic shifts. The end of one paragraph should connect logically to the beginning of the next.
1.2 Peer-Reviewing the Results Section

Peer review is a structured process of evaluating a colleague’s work using explicit criteria. In academic writing courses, peer review serves two purposes: it improves the paper being reviewed, and it develops the reviewer’s critical reading skills.

1.2.1 What to Evaluate in a Results Section

When reviewing a peer’s Results section, evaluate both its content and its language and style:

Content criteria:

  • Does the section cite all sources that were included in the search?
  • Does it clearly answer the research question?
  • Are sources synthesized (compared, contrasted, combined), or merely listed one by one?
  • Is the ordering strategy clear and consistent?
  • Is the Risk of Bias assessment present, with both a table and a concluding text?

Language and style criteria:

  • Is the writing formal, objective, and precise?
  • Are transitions used effectively between sources and paragraphs?
  • Are in-text citations formatted correctly in IEEE style?
  • Are hedging devices used appropriately when interpreting or generalizing?
  • Are there grammatical errors, unclear sentences, or structural problems?
1.2.2 Giving Constructive Feedback

Effective peer feedback is:

  • Specific: Point to the exact sentence or passage that needs attention, not just the general section.
  • Actionable: Explain what needs to change and, where possible, how to change it.
  • Balanced: Note both strengths (what works well) and areas for improvement.
  • Grounded: Base your feedback on the established criteria, not on personal stylistic preferences.

Avoid comments like “this is unclear”—instead, write “this sentence is unclear because the subject is ambiguous. Consider specifying which study you are referring to.”

The goal of peer review is not to correct the text for the author, but to give the author enough precise information to correct it themselves.