Read through your peer’s paper once, marking anything that jumps out at you as interesting or confusing. Then, look over the paper again, and consider the following:
Argument: On the back of the paper or on a separate page, briefly summarize your peer’s argument, and comment did you find this argument clear and easy to follow?
Organization: Briefly outline your peer’s paper on the back or on a spare page. What does s/he write about first, second, third, etc.? Does this organization make sense? Why or why not? Should anything be rearranged? Can s/he clarify the relationship among the various parts of the paper?
State of Knowledge: Locate where your peer articulates the state of knowledge in the field (i.e. places where they cite scholarly sources), and write “State of Knowledge” in the margins. Does the author clearly indicate how each secondary source relates to the others? In other words, does it orchestrate a clear scholarly conversation?
Knowledge Gap: Locate where your peer argues for a knowledge gap (i.e. what scholars in the field do not yet know), and write “Knowledge Gap” in the margins. Does your peer state clearly how s/he hopes to fill this knowledge gap?
Analysis: Locate where your peer is analyzing data (surveys, interviews, a novel, images, etc.), and write “Analysis” in the margins. Write a brief comment: is this analysis clear and convincing? Does your peer explain how the analysis supports his/her argument? (Note: Literature reviews will not analyze data in the same way.)
At the end, write a paragraph summarizing your feedback, and explain: does the paper seem appropriate for an expert audience? Why or why not?