Directions: Peer Reviews

Your peer reviews should address the following five areas of evaluation, along with any general

comments you want to add. Don't feel as though you have to respond to every single question included

here; these are suggested elements of the draft for you to review and critique.

In general, your purpose is to benefit the peer-author by offering your impressions of and reflections on

their efforts in this writing project, using the Final Research Project Grading Rubric as a foundational

guide for what is expected in this assignment. And, as noted above, by conducting this peer review you

will get a better understanding of the criteria you yourself should be addressing in your own paper and

the levels at which you are doing so.

Don't feel like you are grading the peer-author's work; think of this almost as a group exercise in which

everyone is working together to enhance their writing and researching skills.

Don't waste time with vague or clichéd comments such as "Good job," or "I liked your paper, but it

needs a bit more work." These are not helpful, and even less so would be negative comments with no

constructive content. The attitude here should be one of teamwork and mutual support!

Word count for the peer review should be within the range of 350-500 words.

Peer Review Evaluation Questions

1) Research question:

 Was it easy to identify the research question in the first paragraph?

 State what you take to be the peer-author's research question.

 Does this question address a significant issue?

 Is it a worthwhile question to research and write about?

2) Focus:

 Does every part of the draft relate clearly enough to the peer-author's research question?

 Or are there some parts that seem to veer off into side areas?

 If there are instances of veering off the main topic or claims that seem irrelevant, tangential, or

pointless, indicate where that happens in the draft.

3) Sourcing:

 Does the peer-author do a satisfactory job of identifying and explaining their sources in terms of

their sources' credentials and areas of expertise, as well as the methods, ideas and arguments

that explore and support those ideas?

 Are more or different sources needed?

4) Quoting:

 Does the author use direct quotes? If not, would adding them help the paper?

 

 Are there parts of the draft that seem "quote heavy"?

 Can the charge be made that the peer-author is letting quoted passages do the heavy lifting

rather than serving to illustrate or bolster the peer-author's exposition or exploration of the

research question?

 Does the peer-author effectively translate specialist information from sources into non-

specialist language?

5) Clarity:

 Are there any parts of the draft that are confusing or hard to follow?

 Point to the specific words/phrases/sentences (or organizational choices?) that seem to be

causing this confusion.

 Are the peer-author's claims vague, fuzzy, or over-general? Does the peer-author effectively

distill complex information down to its core, relevant ideas?

We can handle this paper for you

We Guarantee ZERO Plagiarism ZERO AI

Done by Professional writers from scratch