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 4 major scholarly sources in addition to course texts?
 
 
 
 
 
5. Does it appear to pass the Test of Empathy?
 
 
 
 
 
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?
 
 
 
 
 
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?
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Return to syllabus.
Direct suggestions, comments, and questions about this page to Dale Cannon.
Last Modified 8/26/97
Western Oregon University