<<return to BIOL 333 syllabus<<
<<return to project guidelines<<
BIOL 333: Environmental Toxicology
Peer Review/Workshop Guidelines
May 3 , 2005
On Thursday, April 28, you will receive a copy of the completed paper from one of your classmates. You assignment for the next class (Tuesday, May 3), is to read the paper and provide a critical, workshop-style review. The purpose of this review is to assist your classmates in revising the completed papers for resubmission. A secondary purpose is to allow you to compare the content, style, and overall quality of your own writing with that of your peers. Finally, you'll get a uniquely focused impression of the areas of interest and expertise of several of your classmates.
You should prepare a written review based on the guidelines outlined below. This will be about two or three pages in length. Prepare two copies: one for your classmate, and the other for me. I will read your review, and the quality of your review effort will contribute to your overall project grade. Strong reviews will be thorough and insightful, revealing an understanding of the issues in the paper you read as well as useful commentary for its improvement. Please be conscientious; weak efforts harm not only your own grade but potentially that of your classmate.
In the May 3 class period, students will divide into discussion groups. I will assemble these groups based on common interest and unifying themes of the papers under consideration.
Note that this is not an anonymous process; your own paper will be reviewed by a member of your group. This will allow you to receive personal feedback in addition to the written comments. It also puts the group members in a delicate position: Criticism can be even harder to deliver than it is to hear, especially in person. How can you provide honest, rigorous, and critical feedback in a way that is considerate and respectful? This burden is shared between reviewers, authors, and group members.
All reviewers should respect the efforts, talents, and integrity of the paper's author. Be sure to note strengths of the paper as well as weaknesses. Where shortcomings are identified, be prepared to offer alternative approaches and/or specific suggestions for improvements in style or content.
As the author of a reviewed paper, demand critical feedback and expect to benefit from it. Reviews that lack rigor and candor will not help you make improvements on the revised version of your writing project. Be prepared to probe and question the reviewer's comments for clarity and intent. If the reviewer fails to address an issue or section of the paper that you struggled with, bring the issue before the group. If you disagree with a reviewer's point, initiate a discussion. However, don't feel like you need to make excuses; this should not be a defensive exercise.
As a group member, pay attention to the reviewer's remarks. Be prepared to join the discussion with comments or suggestions for the author or reviewer. Above all, it is important for all group members to approach the process with a constructive attitude. This assignment is about helping each other in a genuine way—not one that belittles and not one that lets a classmate submit a revised project that is less than her/his best. Please understand that I will ultimately read all the papers; you can't protect your classmate by giving the paper an easy ride.
Discussion Format: The discussion of each paper should begin with the reviewer giving a brief summary of the paper. State the title and author and summarize the thesis statement or main argument of the paper. Subsequently, proceed with an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the paper (see guidelines below). Be prepared to point out specific problems and moderate a discussion of how the author might address them. The group should spend about 15 minutes on each paper. As the reviewer, it is your responsibility to carefully choose the most important points for discussion.
Prepare a written review of the paper that is 2-3 pages in length. The review should address the items detailed below. Submit two copies, one for the author and one for the instructor.
Checklist for review:
1. State the title and author.
2. State the main thesis/argument of this paper. Is this apparent, or is it difficult to discern?
3. Briefly summarize the paper's primary strengths.
4. Briefly summarize the paper's main shortcomings.
5. Does the paper have a logical flow? Does one idea lead sensibly to the next to build an overall story? Are the components of the argument consistent with the conclusion? Are there logical gaps? Should the order of the ideas/paragraphs be changed?
6. Does the paper employ scientific or other data as evidence? Are these data lucidly explained? Do the descriptions suggest a firm grasp of the issues/experiments being discussed? Could the descriptions benefit from more effective use of figures, etc. from the papers. Should these be included in the revision?
7. Does the paper demonstrate critical thinking or does it seem more like a summary or book report? Are shortcomings in the available data addressed? Are alternative or future directions suggested?
8. Is the paper well written? Are paragraphs and sentences well constructed? Are grammar and punctuation properly used? Is it too wordy?
9. Does the paper cite reputable scholarly sources? Does it rely too heavily on web sites, popular press, or other sources that are not subject to peer review?
10.In addition to your written summary, feel free to mark up the actual text of the paper. Return both paper and written critique to the author before leaving class.
IMPORTANT NOTE TO AUTHORS: SAVE your reviewed paper. Submit this version along with your revised version on May 7. Obvious improvement will be rewarded.