Steven Quiring, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography, contributed this Write Idea on peer review.
Students in GEOG 324, Global Ciimate Regions, write a climatological research paper. Since writing a research paper can be a daunting task, it is , much easier if it is broken up into a number of smaller tasks. The students are provided with a schedule (shown below) to will help to keep them on track (and to limit procrastination).
Research Paper Schedule for a fall semester:
-
Choose the type of paper you would like to write and the general topic (middle of September)
-
Have your topic approved (Due Tuesday, October 16)
-
Start a literature search and the data collection (during October)
-
Write an outline for your paper and compile a list of references (Due Tuesday, October 30)
-
-
Complete a draft of your paper (complete by November 13)
-
Edit your own paper! (complete by November 15)
-
Hand in 3 copies of your paper so it can be reviewed by 3 of your classmates (Due Thursday, November 15)
-
Review 3 of your peers’ papers (Due Tuesday, November 20)
-
-
Submit final version of your paper (Due Tuesday November 27)
One of the most important parts of this process is the peer review. An entire class is devoted to demonstrating how to complete a peer review. I first circulate a copy of a rubric (sample below) for evaluating the research paper. I discuss the purpose of the peer review and how to use the rubric. Then I distribute a copy of a paper that was submitted in a previous semester (usually a ‘B’ paper although I don’t tell the students what grade I gave it) for the students to read. The students are given time to read the paper and complete the rubric. They are divided into small groups of 3 to 4 and asked to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the paper that they reviewed. Finally, all the groups report back to the whole class, and we discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the paper in terms of organization, structure, grammar, references, use of figures and tables, etc.
This year, I invited one of the writing consultants from UWC to participate in this class. This was an extremely valuable experience since it provided the students with another perspective. Patricia was able to focus on some of the common grammatical mistakes and issues relating to writing mechanics, while I was able to focus on the climatological content and adherence to discipline-specific writing conventions. Using a "real" paper submitted captures the students' interest and creates a teachable moment for helping them to identify weaknesses in their own writing.
Each student is required to bring three copies of their paper to the peer review class. I employ a double blind review process (each manuscript and reviewer is assigned a number), and the students are sent home to review three papers written by their peers. I also review each of the drafts using the same rubric as the students. After the students get all four reviews back, they are given some time to incorporate the reviewers’ suggestions before submitting the final version of their paper.
Generally the reviews completed by the students contain some constructive feedback. The biggest problem is that some students submit a very rough draft of their paper for peer review (since they know their draft is not being graded). This makes it hard to provide constructive feedback when the paper is missing many of the essential elements that the students are asked to evaluate.
Although the peer review process requires some time and effort on my part, I believe that this approach helps to significantly improve the quality of the research papers. It also helps the students to become better at proof reading and reviewing their own work.
CHECKLIST FOR THE REVIEWER
Rate each factor on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 being poor and 5 being excellent.
1) Is the title informative and a reflection of the content?
2) Are the approach, results and conclusions evident from just reading the abstract?
3) Are the purpose and content of the paper evident in the introduction?
4) Is the paper logically structured and well-organized? (including use of appropriate section headings)
5) Is the paper written using the correct spelling, grammar, and syntax?
6) Are the ideas sufficiently developed? Is there enough depth to the discussion?
7) Did you understand what the author was trying to say?
8) Did you learn something from reading this paper?
9) Has the author written in a clear and concise manner? Is it easy to read?
10) Has the author used the proper citation style (e.g., International Journal of Climatology)?
11) Has the author used enough relevant sources (at least 5 (or 15) recent peer-reviewed sources)?
12) Has the author given credit for all of the ideas that are not their own (e.g., avoided plagiarism)?
13) Are all of the references properly cited in the reference list at the end of the paper?
14) Has the author properly used data (if appropriate) to support their argument:
15) Are the illustrations/tables useful and necessary?
16) Are the illustrations/tables of good quality?
17) Is the paper an appropriate length?
18) Overall quality of the work:
The purpose of your review is to provide the author with the means to improve their paper, so please provide adequate justification for your ratings. The comments can be included here or on the paper itself.
Please justify the ratings that you have provided above and provide more detail.
[Leave space for an answer here.]
Can you suggest any other improvements to this paper?
|
Stand and Deliver: A Blog for Faculty 