Types: Collective (studying a group), Descriptive (a descriptive theory), Explanatory (focus on reasons), Exploratory (a prelude to more in-depth research), Instrumental (more than obvious understanding), Intrinsic (a personal interest in the case).

How to make a case-study:
Step 1: Select a case
Step 2: Build a theoretical framework
Step 3: Collect your data
Step 4: Describe and analyze the case

Discussions may occur among members of a dyad, small group, or whole class and be teacher-led or student-led. They frequently involve discussion of a written text, though discussion can also focus on a problem, issue, or topic that has its basis in a “text” in the larger sense of the term (e.g., a discipline, the media, a societal norm). Other terms for discussions used for pedagogical purposes are instructional conversations (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988) and substantive conversations (Newmann, 1990).

A defining feature of discussion is that students have considerable agency in the construction of knowledge, understanding, or interpretation. In other words, they have considerable “interpretive authority” for evaluating the plausibility or validity of participants responses. 

As well as being a form of quality control for academic journals, peer review is also a very useful source of feedback, helping you to improve your paper before it is published. At its best, review is a collaborative process, where authors engage in a dialogue with their peers and receive constructive support to advance their work.
Some of practical reasons why peer review is beneficial to you. Review can alert you to any errors in your work or gaps in the literature you may have overlooked. Researchers consistently tell us that their final published article is better than the version they submitted before peer review.
There are four main types of peer review used:

Single-blind: the reviewers know the names of the authors, but the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript unless the reviewer chooses to sign their report.

Double-blind: the reviewers do not know the names of the authors, and the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript.

Open peer: authors know who the reviewers are, and the reviewers know who the authors are. If the manuscript is accepted, the named reviewer reports are published alongside the article and the authors’ response to the reviewer.

Transparent peer: the reviewers know the names of the authors, but the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript unless the reviewer chooses to sign their report. If the manuscript is accepted, the anonymous reviewer reports are published alongside the article and the authors’ response to the reviewer.