1. Introduce the Peer Review Project IPHY 3700 Writing Process Map
Monday, November 26
Introduce the Peer Review Project
IPHY 3700 Writing Process Map

2. Schedule Date What to Do Monday, November 26
- Bring 2 copies of your latest position paper draft to class; we'll set up the peer review groups and exchange drafts.
- If you don't receive a draft from someone in your group on this day, please let me know right away.
Wednesday, November 28
and
Friday, November 30
-We won't have formal class meetings on these days. You can use the time to work on your peer reviews. If you have questions about the instructions or if you'd like extra help with your reviews, meet me in the classroom during class time.
- By class time on Monday, December 3, (1) bring paper copies of your written peer reviews for each author and for me and (2) upload a digital copy of your peer reviews, saved in one computer file, in CULearn.
Monday December 3
Wednesday, December 5
Friday, December 7
- Be prepared to participate in the class workshop (see the instructions that follow).

3. Part 1: Written Review
For each position paper that you're reviewing, identify and thoroughly explain 1 major problem with the content intended to accomplish 1 of the following rhetorical goals: (1) convince readers to accept the claim with a data-driven or concept-driven line of support, or (2) acknowledge and refute the counterargument. Your explanation of the problem should focus on the relevance and/or strength of the author’s argument.

4. Example Peer Review Author: Lane et al. || Reviewer: Larry Greene
My review focuses on your explanation of the greater incidence of sclerosis and spurs in the women runners (in the first paragraph of your discussion section). It's appropriate that you're trying to argue that these results do not necessarily reflect a greater risk of osteoarthritis in women runners; the content nicely reflects the important rhetorical goal to acknowledge and refute possible limitations to one's own argument. However, your reasoning in this section is not completely logical and, therefore, convincing. You say that the greater severity of sclerosis and spurs may have been due to the greater bone density in women runners vs. controls, which made it easier to detect the abnormalities on the x-rays. Your results appear to support this argument because the women runners had 40% greater bone density than their nonrunning counterparts. So, as you suggest, it is possible that the bone spurs and sclerosis were more evident in the x-rays for the women runners. But consider that the bone density in the male runners was also significantly greater than in the nonrunning controls, by a similar magnitude of approximately 40%. So, if your reasoning is accurate, the male runners should also have had a greater severity of sclerosis and spurs than the controls. In the male runners' x-rays, these abnormalities should also have been easier to read. But your results do not support this line of reasoning, because the severity of sclerosis and spurs was not different across the two groups of males. So, because your reasoning does not hold for the males, readers might not be convinced that the women runners are not at a greater risk for developing osteoarthritis.
Word count: 274 words
Lane et al.

5. Grading Criteria
1. Each of your reviews must be at least 250 words but no more than 300 words.
2. Your review must include 1-2 sentences that convey something that the writer has done well in the section that you're commenting on.
3. Your review must reflect your use of key diagnostic questions for evaluating written scientific arguments. I presented these questions in class on Wednesday, November 14 and Friday, November 16.
4. So that you can deeply explain how 1 content-level problem limited the draft from accomplishing a key rhetorical goal, your written review should not include any suggestions for revising. However, in the margin of the author's draft, or on a separate sheet of paper, you should note your suggestions for revising so that you can talk with the writer about them in our in-class peer review workshops.
5. Your review must focus on substantive problems based on content that is in the draft, rather than on content that is missing from the draft. For example, you should avoid commenting that writer did not include content for accomplishing the rhetorical goal of acknowledging and refuting a counterargument. If the writer omitted that content from his/her draft, focus your review on content for accomplishing the rhetorical goal to convince readers to accept the claim with data-driven or concept-driven support.
6. Your review must be impeccably written at the paragraph and sentence levels. The writer should clearly understand your comments.

6. Participation in In-class Workshops
1. If you have an acceptable reason for missing a class workshop on December 3-7, please let me know as soon as possible. The penalty for missing a class workshop without an acceptable reason is 2 points.
2. Please do not come to class late during the workshops. The penalty for coming late to a class workshop without an acceptable reason is 1-2 points.
3. Each class session will be devoted to reviewing one author's paper. You should prepare to spend the entire 50-min class meeting talking about just one paper! In addition to talking the author through your written review, be prepared to talk about
a. strengths, problems, and revision strategies for content associated with the most important rhetorical goals for the introduction
b. strengths, problems, and revision strategies for content associated with the most important rhetorical goals for the body
c. strengths, problems, and revision strategies for selected paragraphs
d. strengths, problems, and revision strategies for selected sentences
4. When I visit a workshop group, I'll ask the reviewers to comment on one or more of items 3a-d. I'll grade your participation based on the quality and quantity of your feedback.