History 1095
Spring 2006
Peer Review Guidelines


[PLEASE NOTE: This is not an exhaustive list of questions or issues to consider when reviewing your peer’s work. The below guidelines are intended, rather, to stimulate suggestions for how your peer might improve his/her paper. For Monday you will need to compose a written evaluation of the paper, which you will submit to me at the end of class. Please bring two copies of the evaluation: one for me, one for your peer. The written evaluation will be used during class when you discuss your peer’s paper with him/her. Be sure to indicate in the review both what you liked about the paper and what can be improved. Although I do not think I need to say this, avoid personal attacks. The best criticism is presented in a constructive manner.]


How clearly does the paper identify its thesis? Does the author indicate why his/her research focus is important or significant? In other words, does the paper address the “so what?” question?

How well does the author use evidence to support his/her thesis? In other words, do you find the paper compelling based on the evidence cited by the author? Does the author overreach, drawing conclusions that are not supported by the evidence?

Is the paper too focused, leaving you with questions about the broader context? Is the paper too broad, leaving you with questions about specific aspects of the topic?

Are there controversial statements of fact that are not supported with citations to evidence? Are there factual errors? Are there opinions improperly presented as fact?

How well does the author situate his/her paper within the extant scholarship? In other words, does the author effectively incorporate the work of other scholars into his/her paper? Does the author acknowledge how his/her research makes an original contribution to scholarly knowledge?

Is the paper well written and engaging? Does it contain spelling or grammatical errors? Does it have a clear introduction and a clear conclusion? Is it structured well?

Are the primary and secondary sources properly cited? Does the paper draw on the necessary number of sources? Are there sources (primary or secondary) that the author did not cite that should have been cited?