Peer review for proposal drafts-- in two stages (or "rounds") (P. Hirsch 2008)

printable version (pdf)

ROUND 1

Proposal writer ___________
Reviewer:  ______________

Directions: Reviewer should put a √+ after each item that is handled well and a √- with a question or comment after each item that is missing or still needs work.

Introduction and Background
o    Relevance of topic
o    Questions remaining; significance of your project to the larger world
o    Relevant citations

Research question
o    Aims of the project
o    Concise statement: what you’ll accomplish
    
Research Methods
o    Specific methods you plan to use 
o    Lab protocols and techniques involved
o    How long the tasks will take
o    When you will conduct the research
o    Expected outcomes
    
Preparation
o    Courses that have prepared you
o    Lab experience, including techniques learned
o    Any plans for additional lab work

Need / Impact of the research on your academic career
o    How this experience will benefit you
o    Plans to disseminate research results
o    Publication potential


    
ROUND 2
 
Proposal writer ___________
Reviewer:  ______________

Directions: Reviewer should put a √+ after each item that is handled well and a √- with a question or comment after each item that is missing or still needs work. Reviewer should also circle errors or make corrections on the draft itself.

Organization
o    Do paragraphs begin with main ideas?
o    Do all the details in a paragraph support the main idea?
o    Are related ideas kept together? – in the same or consecutive paragraphs?
o    Do transitional words show how ideas are connected?

Sentences
o    Are any sentences too long and/or confusing?
o    Do sentences contain wordy phrases or redundancies that should be cut?
o    Do the sentences stress strong verbs? Are subjects and verbs close together?
o    Are lists at the end of sentences?
    
Word choice
o    Are all technical terms used correctly?
o    Do any technical terms need to be defined?
o    Do all pronouns have clear antecedents (nouns to which they refer)?
o    Tone: Does the writing sound confident?
o    Usage: Does the writer avoid common problems with words like “data are,” “affects” v “effects,” and “complementary”?
    
Grammar and mechanics
o    Do you see any spelling mistakes?
o    Does the writer avoid comma splices and other punctuation errors?