LFILO2602: Peer Review

General Schedule Readings Paper Peer Review

In order to prepare your peer review, follow these steps.

Underline the author’s thesis. Is this as clear as it could be? Is it saying something original and interesting?
Does the author provide a roadmap of the paper (a summary of what he or she will do in the paper) in the introduction? If so, does this make sense? Does the topic seem too narrow or too large? Again, make some comments if it’s interesting or superficial.
Make suggestions for how the introduction could be reworded, rearranged, made more interesting, or generally improved. Does it use any overused sentences (ever since the dawn of time, philosophers have argued about…)?
Skim the paper (do not spend time looking at grammar, or even reading every word in a paragraph). Just try to identify the topic sentence (or main idea in sentence form) of each paragraph. Often, this is found at the beginning or end of each paragraph. Underline each of them.
Now, look at the argument. Based only on those topic sentences, answer these questions, on another sheet of paper. Do not just answer yes or no.
- (a) Are there some paragraphs that do not seem to clearly support the thesis (e.g., the author seems to go on a tangent)? Or are there some in which the topic sentence needs to be restated in order to more clearly support the thesis?
- (b) After looking at the topic sentences in order, make notes on this other sheet on places where the logical flow of the argument from paragraph to paragraph is particularly good, and where it could be improved.
Padding: Write something like Is this necessary? or Padding? next to places where the author seems to include information that is not useful or necessary for proving the thesis (or the topic sentence of that paragraph).
Quotes: Does the author give too many quotes? (Does it look like he or she is using quotes to make the paper take up more space?) Is the author introducing the quotes well? Is every quote followed by an explanation of what the quote is supposed to do for their argument, in the author’s own words? Are there proper citations? Make a comment about the quotes at the end of the paper or in the margins.
Is the author using the readings well? Are there enough references to what we read in class? (Remember that outside research is okay, too.) Is there too much time spent on summary or book report? Are the readings used in a careful, full, and accurate manner? Whatcould be done better? Could he or she bring in something else for added impact? Is there genuine evidence for each of the author’s points? Make some notes about this.
As you read the paper, make notes next to places where the author is clear, unclear, saying something original or interesting, stating the obvious, not going in enough depth, rambling, etc.
Audience: Remember that the audience for this paper is a well-educated member of your class who has done some introductory philosophy, but is not familiar with the particular readings that this paper is about, and does not assume that the reader agrees with the paper’s conclusions. If the paper is written for the wrong audience, make comments on this at the end of the paper.
Goal: Our goal in philosophy papers is to help the reader see the issues that the author is considering in a new light. Does the paper do this? Can you see why someone would want to read this? Does it grab your attention? Say something about this at the end of the paper.
What are some strengths and weaknesses of this paper? Make at least one positive overall comment and at least one negative overall comment at the end of the paper. Try to be constructive and polite. You could comment on writing style, organization, attention to detail, originality and sophistication, etc.