| UCSB History 133P, Spring
2004 |
Prof. Marcuse (homepage) |
The Peer Reviewing Process
(pdf version for printing)
| Once substantial portions of your papers are complete, you will give them
to your peer reviewer for correction and comment. Please pay careful attention
to the relevant sections of Rampolla (4th ed. 30ff--does it have
a thesis and respond to counterevidence; 53-83--does it obey the conventions
of history writing, not plagiarising, and documentation?).
It is best to schedule submissions of your paper to me and your reviewer in sequence: incorporate the feedback of your reviewer and print out a clean copy to submit to me, or vice-versa. Please be sure to schedule these readings carefully. Reviewers should take care to return corrected drafts in a timely fashion. Based on the version available on the last day of classes, peer reviewers should submit a written review, about 2-3 pages in length, to the author, and to me (the professor). These are due, at the latest, on the final paper deadline (final exam time). But try to give a copy to the author a day or two earlier, if you can. While the first review(s) may take the form of marginal comments and editing marks on the text of the draft, the final peer review will resemble a book review (see Rampolla, p. 24f). It should contain/address the following:
|