Peer Review Rubric
Peer Feedback Rubric
(Source: UW-Madison BioCore) Another way you will work in groups or pairs is through peer review, an opportunity for you to give and receive peer feedback on your papers before you turn them in to be graded by your TA. Writing is a form of communication; a peer can tell you whether or not your paper makes sense. It is to your advantage to take your responsibility to review a peer’s paper seriously. We find that the review process benefits the reviewer and the author because it gives you practice evaluating a paper by applying the same criteria your TA will use to evaluate your paper.
Note that you do not need to wait for us to assign a formal review to take advantage of the peer-review process. You can always get together with other students and act as reviewers for each other’s papers, even when it is not required as part of an assignment!
Peer review is a skill that takes practice. Use the following criteria when you are learning how to peer review. To help you become a more skilled peer reviewer, we will ask you to hand in your peer review comments to be evaluated by your TA. Your TA will use these same criteria to evaluate your peer review.
|
Criteria |
1 - Adequate |
2 - Good |
3 - Excellent |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Focus on “Global Concerns” (larger structural, logic/reasoning issues) rather than detailed “Local Concerns” (spelling, grammar, formatting) |
Does not identify missing components. Comments are restricted to spelling, grammar, formatting, and general editing. |
Identifies most components as present or absent. One or two global concerns comments on a paper requiring more focus. Significant comments are focused at the local concerns/ editing level. |
Can identify all components of paper as present or absent. Provides logical and well-reasoned critique. Recognizes logical leaps and missed opportunities to make connections between parts of the paper. Provides a good balance of comments addressing ‘global concerns’ and minor comments addressing ‘local concerns.’ |
|
Thorough, constructive critique, including a balance* of positive and negative comments |
The review is entirely positive or negative, with little support or reasoning provided. |
Those are good comments, but they are not balanced as positive and negative or not supported by reasoning. |
Supports the author’s efforts with sincere, encouraging remarks, giving them a foundation to build for subsequent papers. Critical comments are tactfully written. |
|
Evidence of thorough reading and review of the paper |
Comments focused on one or two distinct issues but not on the overall reasoning and connectedness of all sections in the paper. The reviewer did not read the entire paper or skimmed through too quickly to understand. |
Evidence that the reviewer read the entire paper but did not provide a thorough review. |
Comments on all parts of the paper and connections between paper sections. Comments are clear and specific and offer suggestions for revision rather than simply labeling a problem. Appropriate comment density demonstrates the reviewer’s investment in peer review while not overwhelming the writer. |
|
Outlines both general and specific areas that need improvement and provides suggestions |
The review is too general to guide author revision or too specific to help the author on subsequent papers. |
Provides both general and specific comments but no suggestions on how to improve. |
Supplies author with productive comments, both general and specific, for areas of improvement. General comments are those that authors may use in subsequent papers, whereas specific comments pertain to the specific paper topic and assignment. Comments come with suggestions for improvement. |