You must complete peer reviews for TWO different articles. To complete a review, log onto Box (https://box.osu.edu), go into our class folder named "ScienceBite Articles ENR2100 Sp16" and locate the article that you were assigned to review (see Excel Spread Sheet titled "Assigned Peer Reviews"). If you cannot find the article PDF that you were assigned, try to find the PDF again. If you still cannot find the article it likely means that it was never submitted so you must pick another article to review. Pick any article you want.
Open the article that you were assigned in Box and read the article. As you read the article, answer all the questions (A-D) listed below. Enter all of the questions (A-D below) and your responses using the Comments Tab of Box. To do this, simply click the Add a comments tab at the top right and Enter Comment. Type your comments and then click the Post Comment button when you're done and you have successfully completed one review.
Below are the questions that you should address in your peer review. You MUST answer ALL the questions (A-D) below as you write your comments. Your comments should NOT be a one or two word response, but rather should be complete sentences that are thorough and detailed in the feedback that they provide.
A. Intellectual Impact of the Article
1. How well does the article function as a piece of writing (i.e. quality of language, exposition, description, voice)?
2. Is the article scientifically accurate?
3. Does the design, flow and the creativity of the article encourage learning?
B. Broader Impact of the Article
1. How well does the article function as a piece of teaching (i.e. quality of pedagogy, clarity of explanations)? Does the article tell a nice story and teach you something new? Is the article too general and/or lack details that would make the story more educational?
2. Does the article contain all the necessary components needed to describe the story or are some things missing that could enhance the story?
C. Technical Details of the Article
1. Has the author included at least ten sources and at least 6 from primary journals?
2. Has the author included at least 4 high-quality figures and/or tables? Did the author provide a reference for each and every figure and/or table? Could the figures be improved, if so how can they be improved?
3. Has the author properly referenced their sources throughout their article with either a number or using author's last name?
4. Is the article approximately 1,000 words long?
D. Based on your answers above, what is your final recommendation?
1. Publish the article in its current state (the article is excellent).
2. Publish the article with minor revisions (the article is very good).
3. Publish the article after major revisions are made to it. The article needs substantial work before it is ready for publication. This could include major changes required to fix figures and tables, or major changes required to large portions of the text. Does the author need to start over completely?
Attachment:- Article.rar