Does the author clearly describe the work and the worldview (including view of metaphysics) of the scientist(s) being examined?

SCIE 4345-21 Peer Review Assignment Summer I 2018

For this assignment you will read and critique the Writing Assignment written by one of your peers. The goal is to practice and enhance your critical reading and thinking skills, apply your time management skills to meet a short deadline, use your writing skills to prepare a summary of your analysis, and improve your peer’s paper.

The Critique

The main focus of your analysis should be on the content of the paper rather than its syntactical construction, although glaring spelling and grammar errors that detract from the presentation of the information should not be overlooked. You should write an approximately one-page summary of your analysis based on your understanding of the nature and purpose of the assignment. To guide you in preparing your critique, be sure to answer these questions:

1. Does the author clearly describe the work and the worldview (including view of metaphysics) of the scientist(s) being examined?

2. Does the author provide insight into the ramifications of the science discussed for the course of future/later developments?

3. Does the author correctly present evidence of the subject’s conception of the scientific method in action?

4. Does the author provide a critical analysis in terms of Kuhn’s categories and the other categories requested?

5. Does the author take into account the presumed worldview of contemporaries, when analyzing reactions to the work?

6. Does the author provide an unbiased and rational analysis of any controversy brought up?

There is also a one-page checklist that should accompany your critique, included with this handout. Pay special consideration to the last statement in the checklist. The paper you read should not be a hastily written first draft – it should be an honest effort to produce a polished and nearly complete final submission.

Grading

The critique you write and the checklist you complete for the paper you read will account for 5% of your own course grade. Your written comments should focus on those areas of the paper that need further attention based on the six questions listed above. Feel free to

make legible comments in a contrasting ink color in the paper margins. Circle misspelled

words and grammatical errors as you see them, but this should NOT be the main emphasis of your analysis. Comments written in the margins are intended to supplement and clarify the written critique you will prepare. This report and checklist must be provided to the author of the paper you review at the first class session of the next week.

For this to work successfully, you must meet BOTH deadlines specified below:

Provide a hard copy of your paper in class on 6/18/2018.

Return the critique, checklist, and annotated paper to the author ASAP, but no later than the end of class on 6/21/2018.

You will automatically lose 10 percent of credit for your own paper if you miss either deadline.

If circumstances conspire to make it a challenge for you to be in class on the due date or the following class session, you must find a way to submit your own paper, and subsequently return the paper and your critique back to the author by the start of the next class period.

Follow Up Paper Addendum

When you receive the critique and checklist from the person assigned to review your own paper, you should revise your paper as indicated and write a one-page addendum that briefly describes the changes you made as a result of the critique you received. To assist you with this, you may want to use the “track changes” feature provided by your word processor. Be aware that you may choose to disregard comments made by your reviewer. If so, you should explain why. The addendum should also include your opinion of the value of the critique you received. Please be candid. This addendum will only be read

by your instructor and may influence the grade received by your reviewer.

Resubmission

The revised paper is due in class on Thursday, June 21. The revised paper should also be uploaded on Canvas along with … .

Recap

1. Each student will receive a paper to read and critique in class on Monday, June 18.

2. The written critiques, original paper, and checklist will be due (no later than the

end of class) the following Thursday, June 21.

3. Revised papers are due in class on Wednesday, June 27, along with

a. the one-page addendum described above,

b. the originally submitted and marked paper, c. the critique written by your peer reviewer,

d. the checklist provided by the peer reviewer,

e. a list of the references you used to write this paper, and

f. the grading sheet provided at the web site by your instructor

ALL STAPLED TOGETHER IN A SINGLE PACKAGE.

SCIE 4345-21 Peer Review Evaluation Checklist Summer 2018

Reviewer Name:

Author Name:

Check all that apply, submit this checklist with your critique.

1. The title is accurate and engaging:

2. The introduction encourages the reader to read more:

3. The paper had been properly proofread:

4. The pages are numbered:

5. Subtitles are properly used to identify distinct sections of the paper:

6. No improper conversational English phrases are present:

(like “based off of”)

7. Statements made in the paper are supported by reliable evidence:

8. New paragraphs are created when a new concept or idea appears:

9. The organization of the paper supports its message:

10. All the requested elements are present:

11. No excessively long sentences are present:

12. No awkwardly-written or confusing-to-read sentences are present.

13. Examples are used effectively to explain complex ideas and concepts:

14. There is no unnecessary redundancy/repetition:

15. Classifications of important aspects of the scientific method are plausible. __________

16. Reasonable consequences of the likely effect of a different worldview are discussed. ________

17. The conclusion follows logically from the points made:

18. References are properly cited and listed.

19. There are a sufficient number of references:

20. The references come from reliable sources:

21. This paper is definitely not just a very first draft.

Note that you should provide details on items in the list that you do not check in

your written critique!

[promo1]