Peer-Review and Publication. Management Assignment

Overview: The ultimate goal of learning the process of research and scholarly writing is for you to publish your own work in scholarly journals. Read the article for a published author’s views.
Writing for Scholarly Publication as a contribution to scholarly conversation
Anne Sigismund HUFF (1998)
PEER REVIEW FORM
Answer the questions briefly but specifically – please use a different font or color that makes your comments easily identifiable by the author you are reviewing. When you have finished filling out the form, post it to the discussion thread.
Name of Peer reviewer:
Name of paper author:
Paper title:
1. Thesis.
Copy and paste the thesis of the paper below. If you can’t find it briefly describe what you think it might be.
Does it clearly state the writer’s purpose for the paper?
Does it set the stage for the remainder of the paper?
How could it be improved in terms of stating the writer’s position or point-of-view?
Where is the thesis statement in the paper ... at the beginning? at the end? Is this positioning effective in terms of preparing the reader for what is to follow?
2. Introduction:
Does the introduction provide some general background regarding the topic of the paper?
Does the introduction make you want to keep reading? Why or why not?
By the end of the introduction do you know the purpose of the paper and how the author intends to address that purpose?
3. Introduction: Follow-through.
Having read the rest of the paper, did you find that the introduction gave you a good idea of what the author actually did address in the rest of the paper?
If not, what is the main point of the paper? Is there a main point?
4. Introduction & Conclusion.
Think about the relationship between the introduction and conclusion. Does the conclusion logically connect to the introduction and thesis statement? How?
Is it a successful conclusion in that it offers closure to the paper while emphasizing the main thesis strongly one last time?
5. Strategies of Development.
Is the paper logically organized into separate sections with headings that represent the major and minor points of the argument?
Are the sections of the paper organized into a logical sequence which supports the thesis statement?
What strategies of development do you see the author using on the paragraph level or in the paper as a whole? Which are the most successful?
6. Development of Ideas.
Are the main points of the paper sufficiently developed?
Does the paper bring up any interesting points that you would like to see developed further?
Do you find any spots where the paper goes off on a tangent or addresses peripheral/irrelevant material?
Are there any places where the author relies too heavily on generalization?
7. Organization of the Argument.
Is the argument organized effectively?
Do the ideas follow each other in a logical, understandable way?
Are there any places that are confusing?
Is the argument based upon valid evidence such as peer-reviewed journal articles or opinion?
What strategies of development do you see the author using on the paragraph level? Which are the most successful?
8. Definitions.
Are all the terms well defined based upon an appropriate number of valid sources?
Terms that have generally accepted meanings in everyday language need to have precise definitions when used in scholarly writing. Identify the terms used in the paper that are well defined, and those that need better definitions.
9. Transitions.
How are the transitions between sections and paragraphs? Copy and paste below one transition that worked very well and state why you thought it was successful. Copy and paste below one transition that is less polished and state why it doesn't work as well.
Good Transition:
Bad Transition:
10. Paragraphing.
Think about the paragraphs themselves for a moment. Does the author use topic sentences?

Are the paragraphs more or less cohesive -- i.e. do they focus on/develop one idea?
Are any paragraphs too long or too short to address the writer’s main idea?
11. Style I.
Is the point of view consistent throughout the paper?
Does the author use precise, formal language?
Does the writer use unnecessary repetition?
Conversely, does the author use repetition deliberately for rhetorical effect? Is that successful? Give examples as applicable.
12. Style II.
Does s/he vary the sentence structure?
Are there too many short, choppy sentences, or ones that are overly complex and need to be broken up?
How do the sentences flow into one another?
Do you find any places where it seems that author deliberately has manipulated the organization of his/her sentences to enhance this sense of flow?
Copy and paste one sentence that you liked and explain why you liked it.
Copy and paste one sentence that you thought could have been improved and why.
13. Grammar & Punctuation.
Are there any grammatical/mechanical errors (including problems with punctuation)?
Are there any consistent problems with diction, usage, or words misused that you can point out to the author?
16. Integrating paraphrases and quotations.
Does the author integrate paraphrases and quotations well?
Does s/he vary the mode of integration?
Are all the paraphrases and quotations used relevant to the argument?
Does the author paraphrase where appropriate?
Is the citation form correct for the type of reference (APA format)?
17. Sources.
Does the author use source material effectively to support his/her points?
Are there enough sources used?
Are the sources paraphrased and synthesized effectively?
18. Further research.
Are there any points that seem to need further research to make them convincing?