Tips for Effectively Completing the Peer Review Rubric

Peer review is an essential skill that helps refine academic work while encouraging critical thinking. Completing a peer review rubric, like the one provided, requires attention to detail, constructive feedback, and a clear focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the article you are reviewing. Below are tips for each section of the rubric to ensure that your feedback is comprehensive, actionable, and fair.

General Guidelines for Peer Review

Read the Paper Thoroughly: Read the entire article carefully before making any judgments. Try to understand the author’s argument, structure, and the connections they make between ideas.

Take Notes While Reading: Highlight key points, areas that need clarification, and sections where the argument could be strengthened. These notes will guide your feedback.

Be Objective and Respectful: Provide feedback that is neutral, focused on the content rather than the author, and framed in a way that encourages improvement.

Use Specific Examples: Refer to specific passages, sentences, or ideas in the text to illustrate your points.

Explore Resources for First-Time Peer Reviewers: If this is your first time conducting a peer review, consider using the following resources to understand best practices:

PLOS Reviewer Center – Offers guidance on peer review processes and expectations.

Elsevier's Peer Review Training – A free course on conducting effective reviews.

Springer Nature Peer Review Training – Includes tips for reviewing manuscripts and providing constructive feedback.

Rubric Sections and Tips for Completing Them

1. Introduction and Background

Purpose: Evaluate whether the introduction provides sufficient background information and frames the article’s scope and significance.

What to Look For: Does the introduction clearly state the topic, research question, or hypothesis? Does it provide context for readers unfamiliar with the subject? Are the goals and scope of the article well-defined?

Feedback Tip: If the introduction is vague, suggest adding specific examples, definitions, or statistics. For instance: *"The introduction mentions the importance of education in the apartheid era but could include data on literacy rates to provide context."

2. Novelty and Significance

Purpose: Assess whether the article offers new insights or synthesizes existing knowledge in a meaningful way.

What to Look For: Does the article explore an original topic or provide a fresh perspective on a well-known issue? Are the findings or analysis significant and relevant to the field?

Feedback Tip: Identify areas where the paper rehashes existing work without adding value. Suggest where the author might explore under-researched aspects or new implications. Example: *"The section on resistance movements provides a good summary but could include how these movements influenced contemporary education reform."

3. Depth of Analysis and Synthesis

Purpose: Evaluate the depth and critical nature of the article’s engagement with the literature.

What to Look For: Does the article critically evaluate sources? Are there clear connections between studies, trends, and gaps in the field? Does it propose future research directions?

Feedback Tip: Point out areas that are descriptive rather than analytical. Suggest ways the author can draw connections between sources. Example: *"The analysis of the Eiselen Commission is detailed, but it would be stronger with a critique of its long-term socio-economic impacts."

4. Clarity of Presentation

Purpose: Assess the article’s organization, readability, and use of visuals (if applicable).

What to Look For: Is the article’s structure logical and easy to follow? Are headings and subheadings used effectively? Is the writing clear, concise, and free of jargon?

Feedback Tip: Highlight sentences or sections that are unclear and provide suggestions. Example: *"The section on legislative acts could be more concise by focusing on the key impacts rather than listing every act in detail."

5. Suitability for the Journal

Purpose: Determine whether the article aligns with the journal’s scope and audience.

What to Look For: Does the article address a topic that fits the journal’s focus? Will the findings interest its readership?

Feedback Tip: If the article is outside the journal’s scope, suggest reframing or focusing the argument. Example: *"The discussion on labor policies could be expanded to tie into the journal’s focus on socio-economic development."

Short Answer Questions

    • Identify the aspect of the article that is most compelling, such as its thorough analysis, clear organization, or use of sources.

    • Example: *"The strongest feature of this paper is its detailed examination of the Bantu Education Act and how it systematically excluded Black students from higher education opportunities."

    • Assess whether the article critically engages with the literature and whether its arguments are well-supported.

    • Example: *"The paper demonstrates good academic rigor but could expand its discussion on primary sources, particularly firsthand accounts from resistance movements."

    • Highlight both strengths and areas for improvement in writing style.

    • Example: *"The prose is clear and engaging overall, but some sentences in the section on Soweto Uprisings are overly complex and could be simplified for readability."

    • Pinpoint the section that requires the most improvement and explain why.

    • Example: *"The section on gender inequalities in education is underdeveloped and would benefit from more detailed analysis and examples."

    • Look for inconsistencies, lack of citations, or phrasing that seems directly lifted from other sources.

    • Example: *"No signs of plagiarism were detected. The citations are thorough and appropriately formatted."

Section-Specific Evaluation

  • Suggest improvements to focus or clarify the scope. Example: *"Consider framing the research question more explicitly in the introduction to guide the reader."

  • Evaluate the flow of ideas. Example: *"The transition between pre-apartheid and apartheid education is seamless, but the paragraph on labor policies feels disconnected."

  • Check for completeness and balance. Example: *"The discussion of legislative acts is thorough but could include more on the Extension of University Education Act’s broader implications."

  • Assess how well the article ties its findings together. Example: *"The conclusion summarizes key points but misses an opportunity to discuss contemporary implications of apartheid-era education."

Final Tips:

  1. Focus on Constructive Feedback: Always provide actionable suggestions to help the author improve their work.

  2. Keep Comments Specific: Avoid vague statements like “This could be better” and instead offer targeted advice.

  3. Balance Criticism with Praise: Highlight strengths to encourage the author and balance your critique.

  4. Use Professional Language: Be respectful and objective in your comments.

  5. Leverage Additional Resources:

    • PLOS Reviewer Center

    • Elsevier's Peer Review Training

    • Springer Nature Peer Review Training

By following these tips, you’ll ensure that your feedback is helpful, detailed, and constructive, helping your peers produce stronger and more polished academic work.