Peer Review:

Respond to the following peer review questions on a wiki page that you provide to your colleagues.

 

1) Does the Cover Page have the four key components?  YES/NO

 

 

2) Is the Table of Contents well formatted and structured with descriptive subsections?  YES/NO  

• Would you value more or less sub-sections?  Do you think this would be more persuasive or usable to their readers?

 

 

3) Is there an Executive Summary that meets the five criteria listed behind the link?  YES/NO

 

 

4) Critique the Introduction:

 

Start with these two questions: 

 

1. Does the introduction persuade the reader that a problem exists?
2. Does it convince the reader that action must be taken to resolve it (likely by stressing the negative consequences or "opportunity costs" of taking no action)?

 

 

Now Use Anderson's Checklist (558).  

• Note: Consider Anderson's 'background' stipulation as something that can be addressed in the authors' background section if there is one.

 

Before moving on, go beyond simply "checking each box".  Provide written comments on:

 

1. which two elements from the checklist are executed very well, and why?
2. which two criteria from the checklist deserve the most attention in a revision, and how?

 

 

5) Use Anderson's checklist to review the criteria generally. 

 

 

6) Test the Overview of Alternatives:

 

• After reading this section, do you have  a solid understanding of the alternatives?  

 

• Does each alternative foster this understanding with a short explanation?   If so, do you think their key readers will want any more description? 

 

• Does each alternative  seem to be presented as potentially valuable solutions to a problem, or are some biased?  In other words do some seem like 'weak options' or to be judged pre-maturely?  

 

• If there is a a need to explain alternatives in detail, do the authors cite several secondary sources to help describe the more technical facets involved in the alternatives? If so, were they helpful?  If not, what might they cite and why?  

 

7) Compare your Methods: 

• Use Anderson's checklist.  
• Follow this up with any relevant commentary.
• Add several sentences 'sharing notes' by comparing any differences in the way your presented your methods. 

 

 

8) Analyze Results: 

• Looking only at the headings, do they seem do describe all the research that would be required to make an effective evaluation of the alternatives/solutions?  In other words are they descriptive/usable enough?  Do the heading seem to be comprehensive enough or offer enough categories for results so that they can make a wise evaluation?

 

• Looking at each of the results sections one at at time... does each seem to be generating enough research?  Apply a sort of arbitrary standard here, looking for 'multiple' (2-3) sources per results section, but also comment generally on whether or not they seem to be providing enough proof to be thorough, or whether they need more. 

 

Looking each section one at a time, do a brief CRAAP assessment of the information provided:

 

Currency: does the information seem timely or current?  If appropriate, is there any mention of when the information was published or posted?  Should there be? Might the information need to be revised or updated?  

Relevance: does the information relate clearly to the goals of the report, or answer a specific research question?  If appropriate, is it being presented to the intended audience directly?  Is the information at an appropriate level (i.e. not too elementary or advanced for your needs?)

Authority: does the source come from credible source or credentials or organizational affiliations? Can you tell?

Accuracy:  does the data or argument seem reliable or correct?   Does the language or tone seem unbiased and free of emotion?

Purpose: do the authors seem to have a clear purpose or reason for providing this information or data?  Do they make their intentions or purpose clear with the headings of with the text or with a figure/graphic/visual? Could this information also be used elsewhere in the report?

 

 

9) Judge and Counter-Argue Evaluations:

 

Judge their Judgements:  

1. Do they evaluate the alternatives well in terms of the criteria?  
2. Are they making clear evaluative statements?
3. Do they present facts and evidence to support evaluative statements?

 

Counter-Argue:

1. Can you think of any reasonable objections to their evaluations?
2. Are there any statements/judgements that seem weak, or unfounded? 

 

10) Conclusion:

 

Does this section briefly restate the main results of the research?

Does this offer a smart discussion of the best possible solutions, or courses of action (including the ways they can come together, or the ways to combine them over time)?   

 

end.

---

 

 

Team Editing and Proofreading Commitment:

 

Below you have Six points of emphasis for editing, which should alter your style, making it suitable to technical and professional communication.  These editing procedures should also improve your mechanics and grammar.  Divide these up among your team for a 'layered collaboration'. 

 

 

1) Focus on Clarity:

• edit out or explain any technical jargon that is not appropriate to your audiences

 

• Define the Unfamiliar

 

2) Focus on Brevity or Concision:   

• Put the most important information first

• Never use more words than necessary

        

 

3) Focus on Active Voice:

 

  

 

4) Focus on Creating Text Flow:

 

 

 

 

5) Focus on Editing the Design of Figures and Images

 

 

 

 

6) Focus on MAINTAINinG CONSISTENCY IN FORMATTING