Peer Review: Parts 1 through 4

Provide feedback in a constructive and respectful way. You may consider using phrases such as:

I’d like to suggest . . .

You may want to consider . . .

It would be helpful if . . .

You might indicate . . .

I had a clear sense of . . . ; however, I was confused about . . .

Instructions

Complete all of the following instructions:

Respond to your instructor-assigned peer via the discussion board, evaluating the entire rough draft of his/her research project based on the following questions:

Review your peer’s research project through the lens of a reviewer from a scholarly journal/editorial board, not of an instructor or classmate. Be sure to respond to the following:

Does the writer explain the real-world relevance of this research by discussing how and why the research is useful for policymakers and for ordinary citizens? Provide evidence to support your ideas.

Does the capstone reach any conclusions about the ethics or morality of any laws, policies, or practices in the International Relation or security domains? Explain.

After reviewing the project, do you agree or disagree with the writer’s position? Why?

As a member of the intended audience, what questions would you have after reading and reflecting on your peer’s research project?

Would you recommend the research be “given the green light” (that is, get published), or would you recommend the author revise and re-submit the work? Explain why.

Peer feedback and self-assessment procedures are related and can complement each other. What two ideas can you take from this critique to help make your own research project better?

Remember that the peer review is more about improving a product than it is about finding fault.

Indicate areas of strength and areas that need improvement.

Provide concrete evidence and specific examples from your peer’s work to clarify your feedback.

The post Peer Review: Parts 1 through 4 Provide feedback in a constructive and appeared first on PapersSpot.