Rough Draft Peer Review
Rough Draft Peer Review Forum
In this activity, each student will conduct two peer reviews. Your instructor will assign your reviews to you. Be sure to check the announcements to see whose work you have been assigned to review. Your job as a reviewer is to follow the checklist below and give cogent, professional feedback to the students whom you are assigned to review.
Note: if you do not have two rough drafts to peer review, please contact your instructor.
Please write at least 1 to 1 ½ page of peer review per assignment.
Refer to the list below and make sure you have covered all of the points in your review.
Peer Review Guidelines
· Professional review that looks at the submitted material from the perspective of assessing the concept as if it could work.
· The reviewer may agree or disagree with the submitted material.
· This is not an argument. Consider that you both want to see the author succeed in this endeavor. The reviewer should provide additional information or countering information from the perspective that more may need to be done or other angles considered.
· Do not focus on grammar, spelling, or format (instructor will do this).
· Focus on content as aligned with the topic at hand and supporting their concept.
· Assertions made by the reviewer must be accompanied by an appropriate citation reference (or references).
The peer review process is intended to mirror constructive feedback you will be expected to provide and respond to in the real world to refine a project or identify new unexplored options. Please perform this review with an open mind, as a professional, and with consideration of how you state your questions or comments. This process of review and defense is almost as valuable a learning opportunity as the assignment. When reviewing the original submitted material, either add your comment/question as a tracked change comment to a new version of the document or compile your comments in a separate document that clearly identifies where the comment is to be applied (e.g., section 3, p. 2, para.1: you assert that UAS are superior to manned assets in agriculture, but do not provide a reference supporting this assertion). Keep in mind the purpose of this assignment is to help refine and improve the student’s project while gaining experience performing peer review.
