Reference health
Peer and Ai Review + Reflection (Pairr): A Human-Centered Approach to Formative Assessment
34/34 checkable references clean · checked 2026-08-29
Every reference with a DOI in the deposited reference list resolved to a known work in Crossref or DataCite at the dated check, and none carried a retraction, withdrawal, or removal notice.
45 without a DOI — not checked. A reference deposited without a DOI is never matched by title or guessed at; it stays outside the checked set, and this line discloses that.
The 34 checked references that resolve
resolves10.24093/awej/vol9no3.23
Exploring Student-Writers’ Views on Replacing Teacher Feedback with Peer Feedback and Computer-Based Feedback
resolves10.58680/rte201527602
The Contributions of Writing to Learning and Development: Results from a Large-Scale Multi-institutional Study
resolves10.1002/j.2333-8504.2011.tb02241.x
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FEEDBACK FOR L1‐ENGLISH AND L2‐WRITING DEVELOPMENT: A META‐ANALYSIS
resolves10.1080/02602938.2012.691462
Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design
resolves10.37514/JBW-J.1998.17.1.06
Assessing Our Assessments: A Collective Questioning of What Students Need-- And Get
resolves10.1080/03075079.2024.2326956
When artificial intelligence substitutes humans in higher education: the cost of loneliness, student success, and retention
resolves10.1016/j.compcom.2024.102827
Generative AI in first-year writing: An early analysis of affordances, limitations, and a framework for the future
resolves10.1109/ICALT58122.2023.00100
Can Large Language Models Provide Feedback to Students? A Case Study on ChatGPT
resolves10.1177/016146811411601319
The Influence of Teacher and Peer Relationships on Students’ Classroom Engagement and Everyday Motivational Resilience
resolves10.1215/2834703X-11205147
Beyond Chatbot-K: On Large Language Models, “Generative AI,” and Rise of Chatbots—An Introduction
resolves10.2378/peu2024.art08d
Empirische Arbeit: Comparing Generative AI and Expert Feedback to Students’ Writing: Insights from Student Teachers
resolves10.1080/0309877X.2021.1950659
High-impact teaching practices foster a greater sense of belonging in the college classroom
resolves10.4324/9781315775661
A Guide to Doing Statistics in Second Language Research Using SPSS and R
resolves10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002
To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing
resolves10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003
The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality
resolves10.1111/jcal.12635
Effectiveness of automated writing evaluation systems in school settings: A systematic review of studies from 2000 to 2020
resolves10.2190/682K-DP1T-X3QG-BYH9
Computer-Based Writing and Communication: Some Implications for Technical Communication Activities
resolves10.17239/jowr-2020.12.01.04
Implementing Automated Writing Evaluation in Different Instructional Contexts: A Mixed-Methods Study
resolves10.32038/frsl.2024.02.04
Teacher-written feedback in L2 writing education: Insights into student tensions and responses
resolves10.58680/ce19909609
Computer Conferences and Learning: Authority, Resistance, and Internally Persuasive Discourse
resolves10.1145/3649468
Envisioning Information Access Systems: What Makes for Good Tools and a Healthy Web?
resolves10.3102/0091732X241227431
The Platformization of Writing Instruction: Considering Educational Equity in New Learning Ecologies
resolves10.1016/j.jslw.2023.101071
The affordances and contradictions of AI-generated text for writers of english as a second or foreign language
The 45 references without a DOI — listed, not checked
no DOI — not checkedTeachers' beliefs about the language of peer review: survey-based evidence
no DOI — not checkedref4
no DOI — not checkedref11
no DOI — not checkedUsing LLMs as Peer Reviewers for Revising Essays
no DOI — not checkedTruth telling: Critical Inquiries on LLMs and the corpus texts that train them
no DOI — not checkedref14
no DOI — not checkedref15
no DOI — not checkedWorking paper 3: Building a culture for generative AI literacy in college language, literature, and writing
no DOI — not checkedref17
no DOI — not checkedref18
no DOI — not checkedinfer: An R package for tidyverse-friendly statistical inference
no DOI — not checkedImpact of AI assistance on student Peer and AI Review + Reflection (PAIRR) agency
no DOI — not checkedThreshold concepts in first-year composition
no DOI — not checkedBeyond knowledge and skills
no DOI — not checkedUses and Limitations of Automated Writing Evaluation Software
no DOI — not checkedSecond language writing online: An update
no DOI — not checkedref32
no DOI — not checkedUtility in a fallible tool: A multi-site case study of automated Peer and AI Review + Reflection (PAIRR) writing evaluation
no DOI — not checkedref35
no DOI — not checkedAutomated Feedback Generation for Student Project Reports: A Data-Driven Approach
no DOI — not checkedref38
no DOI — not checkedGraduate students' use of ChatGPT for academic text revision: Behavioral, cognitive, and affective engagement
no DOI — not checkedWhat is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. Peer and AI Review + Reflection (PAIRR)
no DOI — not checkedref44
no DOI — not checkedref45
no DOI — not checkedref46
no DOI — not checkedUsing LLMs to bring evidence-based feedback into the classroom: AI-generated feedback increases secondary students' text revision, motivation, and positive emotions
no DOI — not checkedref49
no DOI — not checkedref50
no DOI — not checkedConceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory Peer and AI Review + Reflection (PAIRR) review
no DOI — not checkedAll Writers Have More to Learn
no DOI — not checkedref55
no DOI — not checkedOpenAI Used Kenyan Workers on Less Than $2 Per Hour to Make ChatGPT Less Toxic
no DOI — not checkedIs It O.K. to Be a Luddite?
no DOI — not checkedFeedback: Focusing attention on engagement
no DOI — not checkedR: A language and environment for statistical computing
no DOI — not checkedref63
no DOI — not checkedref67
no DOI — not checkedAssessment in the age of artificial intelligence
no DOI — not checkedCan AI provide useful holistic essay scoring?
no DOI — not checkedWriting Task Force final report
no DOI — not checkedIntelligent enough? Artificial intelligence for online learners
no DOI — not checkedGenerative AI in computing education: Perspectives of students and instructors
no DOI — not checkedref78
no DOI — not checkedFostering student engagement with feedback: An integrated approach
What this badge says. CiteStamped means the CHECKABLE references of this
work were clean at the dated check: each resolved to a known work in a public registry, and none
carried a retraction notice at that time. It says nothing about the quality, findings,
or importance of the work itself, and nothing about references deposited without a DOI.
checked 2026-08-29 — re-checked daily as this page is visited; titles and statuses come from Crossref and DataCite and are not part of the signed record
Embed this badge
Both snippets point at the live badge image and link back to this page. The badge re-renders from the daily check, so an embed never goes stale by more than a day of visits.
<a href="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.5066838"><img src="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.5066838/badge.svg" alt="CiteStamped reference-health badge" width="460" height="64"></a>
[](https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.5066838)