NRE 220
CONSERVING BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

How To Be a Terrific Peer Reviewer

As you prepare to review your peer's term paper, please use the following suggestions as a guide. Remember, you want to provide constructive criticism, and your peer needs concrete recommendations for the final draft. Review your peer's paper as you would have your own work reviewed: comment on things that work well along with problems, and try to phrase your suggestions positively rather than negatively. Almost any negative criticism can be changed to a positive comment (e.g. "This section doesn't make any sense" can be phrased as "Better organization would help make this section more clear"). Positive comments point out solutions and are easier on your peer's ego.
Here are some things to look for:

Title:

• Is the title informative and attention getting?
  
• Does it tell the reader exactly what will be addressed in the paper? Is it too cute?

Introduction:

• Does the introduction start with the "big picture" and then quickly focus the reader on the specific problem at hand? Is the objective clear?
  
• Does it provide all the background information needed to understand the body of paper and discussion?
  
• Is pertinent background literature reviewed?
  
• Does it outline what is to come for the reader?
  
• Is there unnecessary info.?
  
• Does it conclude with a strong thesis or objective?

Body of paper:

• Is evidence presented clearly in the text, so that the reader could understand points without the help of figures, tables, and graphs?
  
• Are figures, tables, and graphs used effectively? Do they help the reader understand the author's findings, or do they confuse things? Do figures, tables, and graphs have a legend that explains them completely, without the need to refer to the text? Are they referenced clearly in the text, as in "see Figure 3" or "Table 2 presents results of ..."
  
• Are subtopics clearly divided and given subheadings, or does the paper lose the reader with 1 heading containing 4 pages of text?
  
• Does the discussion lead the reader through a logical series of points to the conclusion? Does the discussion explicitly address conflicts and inconsistencies in the results and literature?
  

Conclusion:

• Are the body of evidence and discussion briefly summarized?
  
• Is the conclusion justified by the evidence presented, or does it go too far?
  
• If appropriate, does the author recommend further research on the subject?
  
• Does the conclusion draw back from the specific focus of the paper and fit results into the "big picture"?

Literature Cited

• Are there enough sources examined for the scope of the paper? Are the sources used varied and reputable? Are they peer-reviewed science journals or other credible sources? Is information predominantly from one source, which may be biased towards a certain perspective?
  
• Is the format proper and consistent? Consult instructions in the coursepack on citation style.

Writing Style:

• Is the writing clear and concise? Check for excessive use of the passive and for long awkward sentences.
  
• Are there unnecessary words, flowery phrases, or excessive use of technical jargon? Are there phrases (e.g. "It is clear that..." or "Thus the reader can conclude that...") that can be eliminated without losing clarity? "When in doubt...leave it out!"
  
• Does sentence structure vary throughout the paper, or is structure too uniform (sounds monotonous when read)?
  
• Is the paper well organized, so that the reader understands where they are and where they're going at all times?

To Top of Page || To Term Paper Assignment || NRE 220 Home Page

This page was last updated 17 January 2000