Qualitative peer critique

Peer Critique – Qualitative Project

1. Exchange documents, either electronically or on paper.
2. Before the reviewer reads the paper, the author should tell the reviewer which aspects of the writing the author feels are her or his weakest. These could be any of a number of aspects from the “Motivations for Revision” list that I posted last week.
3. For the review process, read through the draft one time to get an idea of the paper. After the first read, go through again and be ready to make comments. Be sure to focus on the aspects that the author asked you to focus on, but make sure you note any time you find the writing to be confusing or incomplete. For example, the author may make an assertion about the validity of their data but offer no compelling reason for why they made the claim they did. Point this out to the author and offer a possibility for how to correct the problem.
4. In addition to reading for points 2 and 3 above, be sure respond to all the points below:
5. Remember, point to specific portions of the writing in your response.
6. Finally, please leave time to have a discussion with your peer. Allow for follow-up questions.

What is the overarching research question or hypothesis to which the author responds? If the research question is not clear, suggest how the writer should clarify the question?

How clearly has the author described her or his method? How can you (the reader) tell that the method seems reliable, consistent, and ethical? Have shortcuts been taken in the development of methods that make the conclusion(s) seem suspect? Is the method appropriate for what the author investigates?

Are the results appropriate to support the conclusions drawn? In other words, can you accept the author’s discussion and interpretation of the results based on her or his writing?

Describe the effectiveness of the discussion/analysis section, paying particular attention to how the author interprets the result as opposed to merely summarizing them.

What questions arise upon reading through the piece? Should these questions be addressed in the current work, or might these questions be considered as implications for further research?

Who seems to be the audience in this piece?

How well does the author’s process note describe the writer’s composing process for this paper?

Criteria	Points
Clear IMRaD format (including bibliographic info.)	/30
Clear, compelling research question/hypothesis	/20
Critically reads results, not just report	/20
Correctly adheres to IRB protocol	/10
Offers thoughtful peer critique	/10
Attached research instrument (appendix 1, A, etc.)	/5
Grammar/Mechanics/Style	/5
Follows filename/subject line requirements	-4 if not followed
Total	/100