Using Peer Review/Peer Review Rubric

From UBC Wiki
Author’s Name: __________________
Your Name: __________________

Instructions to author: When the peer review begins, take notes. These notes are for your own benefit when revising and do not need to be submitted. Listen to your peer and avoid getting defensive or apologizing.

Instructions to peer reviewer: Read this peer review form first, and then read your peer’s paper. You can make annotations on the paper, and/or on this form. The paper’s author will keep this form and the annotated paper. You will also have the chance to present your comments, clarify your points and make suggestions during a conversation with your peer.

Identify the paragraph or section of the paper that you think is most effective, and draw a box around it. For this section of the paper, please answer the following questions:

1) What makes this section the most effective? Be specific in your answer.

2) What is the role of this section in helping you understand the science that the author is reporting?

Identify the paragraph or section of the paper that you think is least effective, and draw a circle around it. For this section of the paper, please answer the following questions:
Does this section advance the point the author is trying to make?
Is the content of the section problematic?
Is the organization of the section problematic?
Is the writing in this section problematic?
Provide suggestions for improvement of this section. Make a minimum of one suggestion.

If the paper includes errors in any of the following, circle it here and on the paper draft. Try to include helpful comments about the errors.
topic sentences colon
paragraph structure semicolon
active & passive voice capitals
numbers/units apostrophe
comma hyphen
plurals abbreviation/acronym
Keeping in mind the target audience, answer the following questions:
Is the tone of the paper appropriate?
Is the level of scientific knowledge required of the reader appropriate?
Is the technical language appropriate (e.g. too much jargon)?
Are headings used logically to divide up the paper?
Are there any instances of awkward or ambiguous wording?
Is the paper largely free of grammatical or spelling errors?
Check individual parts of paper and flag problem areas:
Abstract: Are the core contents of the paper concisely described?
Introduction: Is the rationale or motivation explained?
Introduction: Is sufficient background provided for the study?
Methods: Is there enough detail to allow another scientist to repeat the study?
Results: Are the results presented in a clearly organized manner?
Discussion: Are the findings accurately interpreted? i.e. are there errors in the science?
Discussion: Are interesting implications of the findings described?
Discussion: Is each conclusion supported by sufficient evidence (data, examples)?
Discussion: Are limitations or remaining questions assessed?
Figures/Tables: Do these improve the readability of the paper?
If you answered ‘No’ to any of the above, provide the author a brief explanation below.

Use this space to make additional comments about formatting or style and/or to note concerns you have about this paper not meeting the expectations or goals of the assignment.