Peer Review with Writer’s Response from Zoology 957

1. Research paper. An important goal of this course is to teach you to examine and evaluate current literature on evo-devo critically. As a starting point, you will assume the role of an author and write a minimum 5 page (1-1.5 line spacing) research paper. Your paper will consist of one of the following:

(1)    Design a research proposal to test a hypothesis (a “what-should-be-done-next” paper).

or

(2)    Review a major theme in animal evo-devo, where you take a stand on a particular issue.

also acceptable (and highly encouraged):

(3)    Develop a thesis chapter, manuscript, or preliminary/qualifying exam proposal (if your research pertains to evolution, development, or both).

Regardless of your topic, your writing assignment will include at least one figure of your own design. Your figure can serve various purposes, such as illustrating current understanding of a topic or depicting the design of hypothetical experiments.

Due dates:

Declare topics, 20 October 2017

First draft: 10 November 2017

2. Peer review. Another aim of this course is to introduce you to the peer review process and/or refine your capabilities as a peer reviewer. You will exchange your draft with another graduate student. As a peer reviewer, you will write a maximum 2 page (1-1.5 line spacing) critique of your peer’s research paper, focusing on major issues and providing constructive feedback for improving the draft. The exercise is double blinded.

Due dates: Peer review, 17 November 2017

3. Revision and rebuttal. After reading over the review of your paper, you will prepare two items for submission:

(1)    The final draft of your paper.

and

(2)    A Responses to Reviewers document. This document (maximum 2 page, 1-1.5 line spacing) should be formatted as a letter to the Editor, providing a point-by-point explanation of how reviewer comments were addressed, incorporated, and/or rebutted. Rebuttals should be substantiated by reasoned arguments and/or references to the literature.

Due dates:

Final draft, 8 December 2017

Responses to reviewers, 8 December 2017

Evaluations of writing assignments

Writing assignments will be evaluated according to the six criteria.

Clarity. Is the writing sufficiently clear to convey its meaning to a general reader? Are concepts and hypotheses well explained?

Organization. Does the writing demonstrate a solid logical structure? For a research paper, are sections clearly delimited for (a) abstract, (b) background, (c) methods, (d) results, and (e) discussion? For a research proposal, are sections clearly delimited for (a) objectives, (b) rationale and significance, (c) hypotheses, and (d) research approach?

Use of literature. Are postulates appropriately supported by literature citations? Do citations follow a consistent format? Are all key studies germane to the topic included in the references list?

Cohesion. Is the entire work connected by a unifying set of ideas? Does the discussion/research approach address the original hypotheses?

Conciseness and orthography. Are space limits used effectively for each section? Does word choice and use of the discipline’s terminology serve to reduce wordiness and parenthetical explanations?

Illustration. Does the figure clearly convey the ideas intended by its author? Is the figure interpretable by non-specialists of the discipline? Does the figure legend address all the components of what is shown?

Evaluations of peer reviews

Peer reviews are graded according to two criteria.

Critical thinking. Does the review assess all key elements of the work? Does the review provide a rigorous test of the written ideas?

Constructive criticism. Is the reviewer fair? Does the reviewer offer solutions to conceptual problems that s/he raises?

Evaluations of responses to reviewers

Responses to reviewers are graded according to two criteria.

Rebuttals. In cases where the author did not accept recommendations of the reviewers, are rebuttals to the reviewer effective and on target? Is the rebuttal convincing?

Revisions. In cases where the author accepted recommendations of the reviewers, do the changes made by the author address the criticism effectively?