Part I: Assessment by Criteria
I. Argument or Research Question
- Paper has a clear argument or research question;
- The argument is central to the paper and is well supported;
- Both the “summary” and “analysis” aspects of the lit review are present;
- Literature is organized to support the argument
Strong Satisfactory Weak
5 4 3 2 1
II. Categories
- strong, well-developed categories;
- Analysis of articles in each category is comprehensive and creative;
- Bold, informative section headings present
Strong Satisfactory Weak
5 4 3 2 1
III. Article selection, use
- All articles are clearly represented;
- some method to selection is evident
Strong Satisfactory Weak
5 4 3 2 1
IV. Citations & Bibliography (APA style)
- Full, properly formatted (APA) bibliography present;
- citations correctly made in the text
Strong Satisfactory Weak
5 4 3 2 1
V. Writing style
- Well-polished essay;
- Good organization;
- Introduction lays out the topic;
- Body continues the argument;
- Conclusion identifies a “gap” and suggests further research direction;
- Spelling and Grammar mistakes are minimal (do not detract from the flow of the paper)
Strong Satisfactory Weak
5 4 3 2 1
Part II: Structure, Analysis & Readability
This part of the peer review process looks at the way the paper is put together, how the argument is defined, laid out, and communicated to the reader. Type out your answers in the boxes below. Please be as specific as you can (with page numbers, quotes from the paper, etc.) when giving critique and making suggestions about the following.
- What is the main idea or key concept in this literature review as expressed in the introduction? Which overall claim does the author make about their topic in this paragraph? (i.e., is there a thesis statement?)
- Does the author develop a coherent argument about the selected articles throughout the body of the literature review? What is this argument? Are there any sections that require more discussion or clarification in order to more clearly contribute to the overall argument? Are examples (including quotations) adequately introduced, discussed, and related back to the central claim or focus?
- How do the chosen categories provide support for the central claims of the paper? Do these categories relate to research design concepts? Are there any points where the author needs to provide more evidence/support for his/her argument? Are the sources relevant? Does the author consistently and properly cite the sources (both in-line and in the Bibliography)?
- What was the most convincing part of the paper? What was a confusing part? Explain, indicating which ideas resonated most with you and/or which ideas might be clarified further.
Part I: Assessment by Criteria
I. Argument or Research Question
- Paper has a clear argument or research question;
- The argument is central to the paper and is well supported;
- Both the “summary” and “analysis” aspects of the lit review are present;
- Literature is organized to support the argument
Strong Satisfactory Weak
5 4 3 2 1
II. Categories
- strong, well-developed categories;
- Analysis of articles in each category is comprehensive and creative;
- Bold, informative section headings present
Strong Satisfactory Weak
5 4 3 2 1
III. Article selection, use
- All articles are clearly represented;
- some method to selection is evident
Strong Satisfactory Weak
5 4 3 2 1
IV. Citations & Bibliography (APA style)
- Full, properly formatted (APA) bibliography present;
- citations correctly made in the text
Strong Satisfactory Weak
5 4 3 2 1
V. Writing style
- well-polished essay;
- good organization;
- introduction lays out the topic;
- body continues the argument;
- conclusion identifies a “gap” and suggests further research direction;
- Spelling and Grammar mistakes are minimal (do not detract from the flow of the paper)
Strong Satisfactory Weak
5 4 3 2 1
Part II: Structure, Analysis & Readability
This part of the peer review process looks at the way the paper is put together, how the argument is defined, laid out, and communicated to the reader. Type out your answers in the boxes below. Please be as specific as you can (with page numbers, quotes from the paper, etc.) when giving critique and making suggestions about the following.
- What is the main idea or key concept in this literature review as expressed in the introduction? Which overall claim does the author make about their topic in this paragraph? (i.e., is there a thesis statement?)
- Does the author develop a coherent argument about the selected articles throughout the body of the literature review? What is this argument? Are there any sections that require more discussion or clarification in order to more clearly contribute to the overall argument? Are examples (including quotations) adequately introduced, discussed, and related back to the central claim or focus?
- How do the chosen categories provide support for the central claims of the paper? Do these categories relate to research design concepts? Are there any points where the author needs to provide more evidence/support for his/her argument? Are the sources relevant? Does the author consistently and properly cite the sources (both in-line and in the Bibliography)?
- What was the most convincing part of the paper? What was a confusing part? Explain, indicating which ideas resonated most with you and/or which ideas might be clarified further.
