The peer review assignment can be accessed in your “to do” list. You are expecte
The peer review assignment can be accessed in your “to do” list. You are expected to (1) utilize the rubric to evaluate each student’s paper and (2) leave and submit evaluative comments. You have two weeks after the submission of an assignment to complete two peer reviews. The peer reviewer is anonymous to the student. This assignment is graded using the attached rubric. Rubric
Peer Review Rubric
Peer Review Rubric
CriteriaRatingsPts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFocusFocus on “Global Concerns” (larger structural, logic/reasoning issues) rather than detailed “Local Concerns” (spelling, grammar, formatting)
10 to >8.0 ptsExcellent
Can identify all components of paper as present or absent. Provides logical and well-reasoned critique. Recognizes logical leaps and missed opportunities to make connections between parts of the paper. Provides a good balance of comments addressing ‘global concerns’ and minor comments addressing ‘local concerns.’
8 to >6.0 ptsGood
Identifies most components as present or absent. One or two global concerns comments on a paper requiring more focus. Significant comments are focused at the local concerns/ editing level.
6 to >0 ptsAdequate
Does not identify missing components. Comments are restricted to spelling, grammar, formatting, and general editing.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeBalanceThorough, constructive critique, including a balance of positive and negative comments
10 to >8.0 ptsExcellent
Supports the author’s efforts with sincere, encouraging remarks, giving them a foundation to build for subsequent papers. Critical comments are tactfully written.
8 to >6.0 ptsGood
Provided good comments, but they are not balanced as positive and negative or not supported by reasoning.
6 to >0 ptsAdequate
The review is entirely positive or negative, with little support or reasoning provided
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEvidenceEvidence of thorough reading and review of the paper
10 to >8.0 ptsExcellent
Comments on all parts of the paper and connections between paper sections. Comments are clear and specific and offer suggestions for revision rather than simply labeling a problem. Appropriate comment density demonstrates the reviewer’s investment in peer review while not overwhelming the writer.
8 to >6.0 ptsGood
Evidence that the reviewer read the entire paper but did not provide a thorough review.
6 to >0 ptsAdequate
Comments focused on one or two distinct issues but not on the overall reasoning and connectedness of all sections in the paper. The reviewer did not read the entire paper or skimmed through too quickly to understand.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSuggestions and FeedbackOutlines both general and specific areas that need improvement and provides suggestions
10 to >8.0 ptsExcellent
Supplies author with productive comments, both general and specific, for areas of improvement. General comments are those that authors may use in subsequent papers, whereas specific comments pertain to the specific paper topic and assignment. Comments come with suggestions for improvement.
8 to >6.0 ptsGood
Provides both general and specific comments but no suggestions on how to improve.
6 to >0 ptsAdequate
The review is too general to guide author revision or too specific to help the author on subsequent papers.
10 pts
Total Points: 40