Soc 316, Summer 2008 Peer Review Instructions

Rationale for Peer Review

Research shows that peer review improves student writing, including as measured by grades. We use peer review in this class for a number of reasons. First, many students are inexperienced with writing research papers, and applying theories to explain variation in cases of their own choosing. The more opportunities for feedback I can provide for you, the better. Peer review can provide helpful feedback about whether your arguments are coherent and convincing. “Fresh eyes” are immensely valuable!

In addition to the feedback you receive, providing structured feedback and an evaluation of whether your peers have successfully completed the assignment will make obvious to you whether your own work does the same. For example, in deciding whether the author explained her/his criteria for measuring social order, you will automatically reflect upon whether you did this in your own paper.

Instructions for Peer Review Paper Exchange and Workshop

Participation in peer review (including showing up on time, with required materials, on August 14th and 19th) is a required element of this class, and constitutes 7.5% of your total grade (half of your class participation points). The peer review process is broken into two parts.

1) On Thursday, August 14, you must bring two copies of your paper to exchangewith your pre-assigned peer review partners (we will do practice peer review on July 31st). We will spend Tuesday’s class reading and reviewing papers. Authors should use this opportunity to communicate any particular questions or issues they would like the reviewers to address. Over the weekend, you will type feedback for your partners using the peer review rubric on the next page.

2) On Tuesday, August 19, come to class on time with a hard copy of the feedback form (please email it to me by 10am that morning). In class, sit next to your peer review partners. Each group should plan to spend at least 20 minutes discussing each paper. Discuss one paper at a time, and begin with the reviewer reading their feedback form to the author. Peer review is most helpful when both the reviewers and the author are specific. For example, reviewers can ask questions such as “How does this paragraph connect with your main argument in this section?” or “What is the point of this information?” Or you can suggest, “You are talking about your theories in the section on page 2 where you say you are discussing your measures of social order: perhaps you should move those sentences to page 4.” Authors should ask for clarification, for suggestions about how to implement feedback, or clarify specifics about what they are trying to express and accomplish in their papers. For example, if your reviewer says she doesn’t understand your theory, you can ask her to point out in the paper where she got confused. Or, you can orally make your argument, and then ask her how to better represent it in the paper. The author can either respond to the reviewers on a point-by-point basis, or wait until the reviewer has finished, and then respond.

The goal is to give helpful feedback, and have a constructive dialogue about things that work and don’t work in the papers, to brainstorm new approaches and possible solutions to writing challenges. At the end of the session, you will give your partners the typed feedback forms. If your group finishes before lecture is done, I would recommend that authors spend the rest of the period making notes to themselves about how they will incorporate the feedback they have received into their paper (not all feedback can or need be incorporated; you can consult with the instructor if in doubt).

Instructions for Submitting Final Paper

Final papers are due at the start of class on Thursday, August 21.Please submit them in a single envelope which includes the summary of cases with my written comments, any email feedback you may have received from me, the paper outline with my written comments, and the drafts with comments and feedback forms you received from your peer review partners. This material is required to assess your use of feedback: it should be supplemented by (on a cover sheet or as an appendix) a summary of which feedback from the entire process you incorporated in your final draft, how you incorporated it, along with which feedback you disregarded and why.

Feedback from ______on Soc 316 Paper by ______

Feedback Form Instructions:

Read the paper(s) assigned to you twice: first skim it to get an overview of the paper (you can put a line next to important parts that will require comments). The second time read more slowly in order to provide constructive criticism for the author to use when revising his/her paper. I encourage you to provide any feedback and comments you think will be helpful, in addition to completing the comments in the grid below (please type in the grid).

Needs Most
Attention / Could be Improved / CRITERIA / READER'S COMMENTS
I. CASE SELECTION. Did the author choose cases that:
a) have different levels of social order?
b) are similar enough in other respects (so we might reasonably expect them to have similar levels of social order)?
c) involve specific, identifiable groups of people (i.e., among whom you can identify social order)? Explain any concerns regarding a, b, and c.
II. MEASURES. Did the author:
a) have clearly specified measures of social order?
b) adequately justify his/her choice of measures?
c) specify whether s/he was measuring cooperation and/or predictability? Which?
d) Did they apply their measures to each case? If not, point out what they missed.
e) Did the cases vary on the measures? Specify if they did not.
f) Did they provide adequate data/evidence to back up their assertions about the levels of order in their cases? Did the avoid making sweeping generalizations not backed up by evidence? Explain.
III. THEORY. Did the author:
a) use one of the five theory groups? If not, explain what they did wrong.
b) specify which individual theorists explain their cases? Please note them.
c) demonstrate understanding of the theory group? Explain.
d) demonstrate understanding of the individual theorists they mention? Explain.
e) convince you that the theories they chose actually explains the variation in social order across the two cases. Explain. For example, if you think another factor/variable OR a different theory better explains the variation in social order, please specify this.
III. MECHANICS.
a) Did the author use correct punctuation, grammar, and spelling? Note specific issues, especially if they appear throughout the paper.
b) Was the paper well organized? Explain why or why not. For example, note if sections or paragraphs seem out of order or do not “flow well.”
c) What specific suggestions do you have to improve the presentation or “readability” of this paper?
d) Did the author cite outside evidence appropriately? Might they be missing citations? Specify any problems here.
e) Are the conclusion and introduction well written?
f) Does the author use the proper tone (persuasive, analytical argument)? Does the author use active rather than passive language? Does the author avoid “flowery” language and personal anecdotes? Note any concerns.
IV. MISCELLANEOUS
Please specify 1-2 strengths of the paper and 1-2 weaknesses. What is the most important thing, in your opinion, for the author to address for his/her final draft?

Note: The feedback forms and some of the general information about peer review utilize information from the Writing Center of University of Hawaii at Manoa. They provide helpful online writing resources, including about peer review,at