Peer review: doing it
8 December, 16:45-18:15.
These slides cover the practical half: reading a draft and writing a review of it.
Bring your draft. Post it in the Peer review: papers forum before class and bring a printed copy — without one you cannot take part, and the people reviewing you have nothing to read.
We read, review and plan revisions in class. Written reviews go in the forum afterwards; see the sub-tasks for the deadline.
Peer Review
Use this to give specific, constructive feedback to your partner. You must write at least one sentence for each topic. You can also mark comments directly on the draft and summarize here. For this task, neither the author or the reviewers are blind: put your name on your review (and it should be on your paper).
1) Content & Argument
- What is the main thesis / research question?
- Is the argument clear and sustained throughout?
- What claims need more evidence or better support?
2) Structure & Clarity
- Are abstract, introduction, body, conclusion present and effective?
- Does the paper flow logically? Are paragraphs coherent?
3) Use of Sources
- Are there at least 5 reliable sources (incl. 2+ scholarly)?
- Are sources integrated and evaluated (not just dropped in)?
- Are citations and references consistent, and in APA 7?
4) Language & Style
- Is the tone appropriate for an academic audience?
- Any recurring grammar/style issues affecting clarity?
5) Suggestions for Improvement
- Strongest part of the paper:
- One concrete change before final submission:
6) Overall Assessment
- Perfect/Minor Revision/Major Revision/Reject
And something lighter
