A mockup of a prompt telling users that their posts will be subject to peer review. The user is invited to either edit their post or proceed to posting it.

Warning that Comments Will be Reviewed by Peers Before Publication

Reduces toxicity of comments

Untested

Emergent

Evoke User's Visibility

Warning that Comments Will be Reviewed by Peers Before Publication

Share This Intervention
Back To Top

Overview

What It Is

This is a prompt that any given comment will be reviewed by three peers for civility before anyone will see their comment. This should be shown before a comment can be submitted, so that the user will have the opportunity to revise the comment.

While the prompt itself is the tested part of the intervention, it should be paired with an actual peer review process (for example, prompting users to review other comments for civility before theirs can be submitted).

If no actual peer review process exists, the prompt becomes a scarecrow that can be ignored and it loses effectiveness.

What Is Its Intended Impact

The peer-review process functions as prompt for users to reflect and self-moderate content before sharing.

This prompt, surprisingly, was the most effective step in a peer-review system of comments. Upon seeing it, many people posting either revised their comment or abandoned it.

When To Use It

Text comment sections on sites with sufficient traffic for it to be believable that multiple people might review their comment.

How We Know It Works

Why It Might Work

  • Civil Co., a social media company, had implemented this peer-review prompt and process in their wider peer-review system to moderate comments (Bodganoff, 2017)
  • Bodganoff spoke of the outstanding success this intervention had at prompting self-moderation

It must be noted that this was not part of a formal study that was publicly available, it was published by a company claiming the effectiveness of their own product.

However the claim was on a post announcing the shutdown of the company and discontinuation of service, so there is presumably no underlying conflicting profit motive to their claim. To our knowledge, the founders have not gone on to start another business with a similar product.

Why It Matters

Special Considerations

Examples

This entry is currently being researched & evaluated!

You could help us improve this entry by contributing facts, media, screenshots, and other evidence of its existence in the wild.
Email us

Our Confidence Rating

Emergent

A grade of Emergent is often given to interventions for whom the majority of research is qualitative.

Alternatively, if research exists, but the methodology is not publicly available, the Prosocial Design Network will also assign it an Emergent grade.

This grade denotes that the idea could have merit, but no quantitative research exists to explain why or how.

In The Wild

This intervention has precedence, and exists, or has at one time or another, existed in the wild.

Citations

This section does not yet cite any sources.

There's more to learn about this intervention. Want to help?

Do you think this intervention could have more benefits, unacknowledged drawbacks, or other inaccuracies that we've neglected to mention here?

We always welcome more evidence and rigorous research to back up, debunk, or augment what we know.

If you want to be a part of that effort, we'd love to have your help!

Email us

Further Reading

Back to Prosocial Design Library
Donate
Contact
About
Library
Home