Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
The purpose of the review is to provide authors with explicit feedback on
how to improve their papers so that they will be of "A" quality.
You do the authors no favor by just writing that "everything is great!"
Instead, please be a bit ruthless!
confidential comments to the instructor are respected, any remarks that might help to strengthen the paper should be
directed to the authors themselves.
Answer each of these 12 questions in one
or two full sentences, and e-mail completed review to authors, and turn in
a paper copy to me.
Attention authors: If you disagree with the
reviewers' comments, you are not absolutely required to follow them, but this process is useless if you do not
try to revise your
paper based on the reviewers' comments. O. W.
paper have a clear standpoint and purpose? What are
the main standpoint, claims and arguments of the paper and how important are they?
How are these arguments and standpoint creative and original? If the
authors' arguments are not original, what sources are the authors copying?
Do they give proper credit to the original sources of their data,
arguments or standpoint?
claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature, by
research, quoting and citing? In their argument, do they quote from or
cite all of their required sources? How well is this done?
Are the authors' sources all
primary, scholarly or professional? Do the authors use any biased, unreliable or out of date sources to try to make their
results solidly support the authors' claims? Were you, yourself
convinced of the authors' standpoint? If not, what additional evidence
would be required to persuade you?
other research or additional information would improve the paper? How much
better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult
would such work be to do, or to provide? (Do not write, "It is perfect
as written." Anything can be improved.)
paper pass anyone's "Who cares?" test? Who would
find this paper of special interest? Why?
paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see
this work presented in a seminar at your university? Do you
feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture
on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not, and
what would make it outstanding?
If the paper
does not work in its present form, does
the report itself show sufficient enough potential that the authors
should be encouraged to resubmit a revised version? Or do they need to
toss the whole thing out and start over from scratch? Why?
manuscript clearly enough written so that it is understandable to
non-specialists? If not, how could it be improved? (A peer reviewer is
not a proofreader! Please concentrate
mainly on matters of organization and content and not on grammatical or
spelling errors that will be corrected later by the authors themselves, or
by a proofreader.)
authors cited the previous literature appropriately? Is their use of
paper offer enough details to allow you to easily recheck and verify all
facts and sources that are not common knowledge, if you needed to do so?
Note: The review process is strictly confidential
and should be treated as such by reviewers.
Modeled on Public Library of Science
"Reviewer Guidelines ",
. Some text quoted from that source
is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution License.
O.W. 8/08 rev 3/11
For educational purposes only.
|Owen M. Williamson - Education Bldg 211E - phone: (915) 747 7625 - fax: (915) 747 5655|
Open Courseware | OCW |This work is dedicated to the Public Domain..