Reviewer: Author:

Peer Review: the goal of doing peer review in an academic setting really has little to do with copy-
editing. You can make note of those things on the paper you are reviewing (and it is kind to do so).
However, the point is really to critically analyze the important elements of the paper. Were you clear on
the issue and government action under consideration from the outset? Is the argument coherent,
comprehensive, and logical? Does the paper make sense to you? After reading the paper, do you feel
that you have a reasonable understanding of the issue at hand? Sometimes authors really think they
have hit all of these elements, and it is all very clear in the author’s mind, but that clarity is not always
translated to the written page. Your job here is (a) to help the author see where there are areas for
improvement, and (b) to provide suggestions that will help them make those improvements.

Instructions: Make sure that you give feedback (including comments) on each element. Circle Y, M
(maybe), or N, then give that answer context. If you’re not sure whether or not the author has
completed the element, circle M and then explain why you aren’t sure.

Comments

Y
Will the reader know what the general
issue is, and why it matters? As the
reader, what do you think the issue is?
M
If the issue isn’t clear/early enough in
the paper, what change would you
suggest?
N
Y Will the reader recognize early in the
paper what specific action some part
of the government might be taking on
M the general issue? What part of the
government is involved, and what
might it do? If it is not clear, which
N part of this is unclear?
Y
Did the author clearly spell out what
their opinion about this potential
action is? As the reader, what do you
M
think their opinion is? If the opinion
isn’t clear enough in the paper, what
change would you suggest?
N
Y
Does the paper provide you with
enough background information to
M
understand the issue and why the
government is taking action on it? If
not, what is not clear?
N
Y Are the sources used for background
sources appropriate? Are they high-
M
quality national papers of record or
something else?
N
Y
Does the paper cite an appropriate
government document relevant to the
M action that is under consideration? If
not, what kind of documents do you
think needs to be cited?
N
Does the paper clearly and fairly
present an opposing argument? Is this
Y
argument specifically about the
potential government action being
considered? Is there someone who
M
might be a better spokesperson for the
opposing viewpoint? List any way that
you think the presentation of the
N
opposing argument could be
improved.
Y
Does the author present a reasonable
and convincing critique of the
M
alternative argument? How could this
critique be improved?
N
Y
Does the author present his/her own
convincing argument in favor of or
against the potential government
M
action? Is it sufficiently focused on a
specific action? How could this
argument be improved?
N
Y
Are sources in the paper properly
documented? Do you know where all
M the key information is coming from?
What information in the paper needs
clearer documentation of citations?
N
Y
Does the paper include a properly
formatted Works Cited section? If not,
M what is wrong with it? What does the
author need to focus on to improve
this part of the paper?
N