{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

HD4300 Peer Review guidelines

HD4300 Peer Review guidelines - • Method Does the...

Info icon This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
HD 4310: Mind, Self, and Emotion Spring 2010 Professor Qi Wang How to do peer review? 1. Things you should do: read the papers; make marginal comments; write a one-paragraph note to each author indicating the following points (you can either type or write clearly): What you take to be the main thesis of the proposal What you find most persuasive or strongest in the proposal (be very specific) The two or three things that most need to be worked on, rethought, moved, expanded, etc. (again be very specific) 2. Things you should focus on: Thesis: what is the research question? Motive: what does the proposed study intend to achieve? (importance of the study) Evidence: Are the data/theories presented adequate and persuasive to support the thesis? Are they cited properly? Are they excessive or irrelevant? Analysis: Have the data/theories been analyzed (from the author’s point of view) rather than just being summarized or quoted? Are they interpreted correctly? Do they provide a solid foundation for the research question?
Image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: • Method: Does the proposed method serve to test the research question? Are there any confounding variables that need to be controlled for? Will there be any alternative interpretations for the results? Is the method ecologically valid? Will the results have real-life implications? • Key terms: Are the key terms properly defined? • Structure: Does the organization of the proposal help to demonstrate the thesis? Do paragraphs and sections follow a logical order with the development of the analysis? • Style: Do citations, quotations, and references follow the APA style? • Title: Is the title both interesting and informative? 3. A few tips: • Try to phrase your (marginal) comments in terms of your reactions rather than the paper’s or the author’s shortcomings (e.g., “I’m confused here” rather than “this is muddled”). • Try to phrase your (marginal) comments in terms of the elements listed in 2....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}