Referee Guidelines for Research Paper In-class Peer Workshops
In the workshop you are acting as each others' coaches.  Do not apologize for offering constructive criticism.  Reviews offer authors the possibility of finding out whether or not the structure of a paper works before it is evaluated by the instructor.

Part One: Argument and Construction

Write the thesis of this paper in your own words.  The thesis should make a statement that can be proven.  If it is vague or unclear, how could it be made more precise?
 
 
 
 

Draw up a rough outline of the paper.  The author needs to know if the argument as it exists in his or her mind is the same one that is coming across to the reader.  Do the points which the author makes support the thesis?  Does the author explicitly state the relationship between each point and the thesis?  Are the points arranged in a logical order?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The paper must be more than a summary of each of the readings completed by the author.  If it reads like a series of summaries, warn the author!
 
 
 
 

If the paper includes one or more sections which are basically descriptive narrative, how well do they fit into the whole?  Do they provide all of the context necessary to understand the situation under study?  Do you feel you need more of this background; if so, try to specify what you believe is necessary: more information on certain people, events, structures, etc.?  Do you believe that there is too much narrative: is all of the narrative in the paper relevant to understanding the analysis?
 
 
 
 

Does each paragraph take up only one idea, which is announced in a topic sentence?
 
 
 
 

Part Two: Research
 
Does the paper demonstrate an understanding of enough sources to meet the requirements of the assignment?
 
 
 

Do the sources seem appropriate to the thesis?
 
 
 

Would you suggest some additional research to make the paper even more convincing?  Would you suggest any particular type of research?
 
 
 

Is the paper adequately documented?  (One should be able to find all of the data in a paper by looking up an author's citations.)  Has the author used the correct citation style?
 
 

Part Three: Clarity of Expression

Every writer occasionally uses wording which seems clear to the writer but does not communicate an idea to the reader.  Note all of these instances on your copy of the paper itself.

These research papers must use standard written English in a formal mode.  If the author lapses into informal or carelessly phrased language, note this on your copy of the paper itself.

Are there any terms in the paper which need to be defined, either because the author is using them in an unconventional way or because a particular term is restricted to specialists in this field of study?
 
 

Part Four: Mechanics

You are not required to proofread this paper.  However, if you see the author consistently making a particular type of error, it would be collegial of you to mention this.

Part Five:  Anything Else?

Please list two specific suggestions for improving this paper.  If you see any potential problems which do not fit into the categories I have listed here, do please tell the author about them.