Write It Up (Chapter 5)
Stylish Academic Writing (Chapters 9-11)
Discussion #2: Discussion on manuscript review example
Grade: 4 Points
Requirements
Monday-Thursday: Post your initial responses to the discussion questions
Friday-Sunday: At least one response to others' postings
Recently, I served as a guest editor. Here is a received manuscript and three reviewers' comments and feedback on this manuscript. Let's use this case as an example how real-world manuscript review works.
Tasks
Read, Examine, Reflect on real-world journal manuscript review
Read
Manuscript submitted to certain peer-reviewed journal
Discussion Question
What do you learn from this real-world manuscript review example?
How you may apply what you learn to your peer-review and manuscript writing/submission?
Assignment 2: Peer Review #1
Grade: 10 Points
Due
End of Module
Submission
Use your peer review partner's shared Google Docs to provide your peer review feedback and comments at the end of the document. In addition, you can use Google Docs' commenting feature to provide your feedback to a specific area in the texts.
Q: how many peer reviews should I conduct?
A: At least one. Your team should decide how many and who reviews whose.
Research Proposal Part 1 Peer Feedback Guide
Directions: Answer the following questions for your peer review partner, approximately 1-2 paragraphs per item.
Does the introduction/literature review seem to tell a new research story, or does it feel like a “book report”? Explain your response.
Does the introduction/literature review lead the reader to ask the primary research questions as they read it? Did you arrive at the questions before being told? How could this flow improve?
Does the introduction/literature review follow one of the templates discussed by Silvia in Ch. 4, and if so, which one? Is the use of this template successful? Does the author use a real argument or a strawman argument? Explain your responses.
Is the introduction/literature review framed within a larger problem or theory? Are enough sources used to give a clear explanation of the problem and theory? Explain how you interpret this work fitting in to the big picture, and whether or not this is coming through.
Is APA style used throughout? Is there a complete and correct citation list? Are the in-text citations complete and correct? Explain.
Are style conventions used well? Are the sentences too long or difficult? Is the writing in passive voice? Does it seem pedantic? Does the author’s voice come through?
Does the author discuss the existing evidence adequately? Do you find yourself needing to trust what the author is saying, or are they backing up their claims with real, interpretable evidence along with accurate interpretations. Explain.
Does the author include a pre-introduction before the introduction/literature review, and does the pre-introduction successfully frame the study? Does the pre-introduction start with a good opener?
Taken as a whole, does the paper make sense? Does it seem faithful to the existing literature? Are there big holes in the argument or topics that are missing?
What other suggestions for improvement do you have for your peer?
Peer Feedback Rubric: Formatting
Novice: 0 (0.00%) - 79 (79.00%)
At the highest level, the feedback is vague or unhelpful, or responses to some questions are missing, or the feedback was given to the peer much later than the due date. This would be the highest category you could earn if you turned in your draft to your peer after the deadline for feedback had passed or failed to turn in a draft for feedback at all.
Competent: 80 (80.00%) - 89 (89.00%)
The feedback is mostly clear, though some points might be somewhat vague or unhelpful. The feedback would help the peer make some meaningful adjustments to the proposal, but could be more specific, appropriate, or constructive. This category would be the highest possible for feedback that was submitted one to two days after the feedback deadline; or if you turned in your draft to your peer late but before the deadline for feedback.
Proficient: 90 (90.00%) - 100 (100.00%)
The feedback is clear, helpful and constructive, and will enable the peers to make meaningful adjustments to the work. Your original draft and your feedback were both delivered to your partner in by the deadlines.
Continue working on your manuscript (work on polishing your literature review, check your citation style and the presence of all intext citations both in the text and in the reference list, outline your method section, check/rerun your data analysis)