Peer Review Example

Learning about the Peer Review Process for me, was very useful. I'm a Peer Editor for two graduate journals, but it was really useful learning the theory behind it. As well, I really liked the tips, and the website, that Prof. Grimes mentioned.What I personally find the most difficult is being constructive. I often find it difficult to be optimistic about the paper. I just think to myself that if it were my paper, I would want good, constructive comments about how to improve.

I chose the paper about Podcasts. I am looking forward to applying the hands-on skills I have acquired from being a peer-editor, to the theory and skills taught, as I never really learned them explicitly in a lecture.

I'm also posting a checklist I use to conduct peer-reviews to help out.

Happy Reviewing!
-->

 Review Checklist

Instructions: While reading through, or immediately following your first read of the paper, fill in the checklist below. Using the guiding questions, place a number from 1 (weakest) to 5 (strongest) in the column indicating how well the paper meets the listed criteria. This will produce a general mark based on your initial impression of the paper.

Evaluation Criterion	Mark (1 – 5)
1.   Appropriateness (Overall, is the article appropriate for its level – undergraduate or graduate – and the intended audience of the journal?)
2.   Topic (Is the article’s topic of particular interest or relevance? Is it interesting?)
3.   Title (Is the article’s title clear and consistent with the content?)
4.   Introduction (Does the introduction raise interest? Does it reflect the content of the paper—i.e., are all questions answered/points addressed by the end of the essay?)
5.   Thesis/Purpose (Is the thesis/purpose of the article clear, focused and consistent?)
6.   Argumentation (Does the article demonstrate valid, logical arguments and/or meaningful discussion related to its purpose?)
7.   Supporting Evidence (Do demonstrable links exist between the sources used and the article’s arguments and overall purpose?)
8.   Sources (Do the sources reflect an understanding of the significant and relevant literature in the field or other important documents, etc.?)
9.   Theoretical Background (Does the author show an understanding of the theoretical background relevant to the theme and purpose?)
10.Conclusion (Is the conclusion strong, clear and consistent with the article’s arguments, discussion and overall purpose?)
11. Significance (Does the article identify significant ideas or findings that either clarify or add to what is known in the field?)
12.Writing (Is the writing sufficient to be published considering word-choice, spelling, grammar, punctuation and overall style?)
13.Format (Does the article comply with the journal’s format and length limit?)
14.Referencing (Does the referencing – footnotes and bibliography – appear thorough, complete and accurate?)
Total (above ÷ 14) =