PEER REVIEW GUIDE FOR RESEARCH PAPER
(Do not just criticize, but make suggestions for
improvement wherever it is needed.) _______________________ |
_______________________ |
______________________ |
name of author |
title of paper |
name of reviewer |
1. How well does the paper read? Are there parts that are unclear or difficult to
understand? Does it hang together and make sense? Is it well organized?
2. Are there glaring typos, misspellings, ungrammatical sentences, etc.?
3. Is documentation given in correct MLA format?
4. Does it make use of at least 3 major scholarly sources in addition to class texts?
5. Does it appear to pass the Test of Empathy (i.e., can you imagine that a knowledgeable
representative of the tradition agreeing with the interpretation being given)?
6. Does it make accessible the meaning of the phenomenon has to insiders? Does it make it
"come to life"?
7. Does it pass the Test of Neutrality (i.e., is it free of bias and does it avoid
presenting religious convictions as if they were facts)?
8. Has the context of the phenomenon been made clear? I.e., is it clear what is being
talked about as to its context in a specific religious (sub?)tradition, cultural setting,
and historical time?
9. Is it consistent with (and take account of) relevant material covered in class?
10. Any other comments or suggestions for improvement?
Western Oregon University Copyright © 1997 Western Oregon University
Direct suggestions, comments, and questions about this page to Dale Cannon.
Last Modified 12/31/98