Rubric for peer-review of introduction (only)

Use this rubric to guide your review of another student’s introduction. Your job, as a peer reviewer, is to help them as much as possible to improve their paper, and therefore their grade. As part of your peer review, you should:

Make comments commending good aspects of the paper
Make detailed suggestions about content
Make detailed suggestions about organization
Correct grammar
Correct spelling

Although you will give them a ‘grade’, that grade does not become part of their course grade, so, while it is useful to point out good aspects of the paper, don’t feel pressured to overly nice!

	5 Points. Exceptional	3 Points. Acceptable	0 Points. Marginal
Title	Title conveys the essence of the paper. The reader is able to easily guess at the general hypothesis tested and perhaps the results.	The title is on topic but is nebulous. Would be difficult to identify the hypothesis and/or results.	Title is largely non-descriptive and conveys little information about the study itself.
Introduction As this is the bulk of the paper, give up to 20 points for this	The author gives a compelling introduction that helps the reader understand why the topic is important and any necessary background knowledge. Explains what the study aims to accomplish.	The introduction lacks clarity and contains some useful information for helping the reader understand the topic, but the logic isn’t clear.	Introduction does little to help the reader understand any background to the topic and/or is poorly written and missing elements needed to make a compelling argument.
Research Hypothesis This will usually appear at the end of the introduction.	Clearly lays out a research hypothesis in the correct format. The hypothesis is logical even though it may not be correct.	May have a hypothesis, but the hypothesis is not clear or in the format of a research hypothesis.	Lacks a research hypothesis.
References Ultimately the paper must have 2 references but the intro itself does not need any, though it is a good place for them.	At least 2 proper citations of primary literature. Papers properly listed in a ‘References’ section. Papers cited are used to help the author substantiate argument and seem relevant to that task.	Citations are not done properly or not listed properly in a “References” section. Papers cited seem relevant to the argument being made.	Less than 2 citations used. Citations that are used seem to be used incorrectly or seem to be irrelevant to the argument.
Writing and style The paper should be written in formal, scientific language. Use the Ye et al. paper as a guide.	Paper has few, if any, grammatical or spelling mistakes and is easy to read and well organized. Uses present tense for “universal truths’ and past tense for actions taken and things discovered.	Paper has occasional errors, but may be a bit difficult to read. Tense is generally correct with no more than a few mistakes	Paper needs to be proofread for grammatical and spelling errors. May even have some incomplete or run-on sentences. Incorrect use of tense.