Article Peer-Review: Using the Essential Intellectual Standards

Criteria for the peer-review of articles.

Paul and Elder’s (2020) Universal Intellectual Standards, as found in The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking, are used as criteria for conducting peer-reviews of the two articles assigned in this course. When routinely, consistently, and deliberately put to practice in your daily thinking, research, and writing, the standards will cultivate the development of intellectual virtues over time.

Instructions: Complete this review form in its entirety.

1. Mark a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ for the three criteria listed under each of the intellectual standard headings.

2. Provide scholarly feedback in the text boxes for all 10 of the intellectual standards.

3. Identify two areas of strength, two areas for content-related improvement, two alternate word choices, and two alternate sentence structures.

Clarity Feedback

Elaborates where needed Yes | No

Incorporates excellent examples Yes | No

Describes or illustrates what is meant Yes | No

Accuracy Feedback

Presents supporting/contrasting views Yes | No

Conveys research findings accurately Yes | No

Verifies with other information findings Yes | No

Precision Feedback

Provides specificity where needed Yes | No

Furnishes sufficient details Yes | No

Expresses proper amount of exactness Yes | No

Relevance Feedback

Correlates content to the topic(s) Yes | No

Arouses interest, is applicable/current Yes | No

Develops content suitable for journal Yes | No

Depth Feedback

Addresses the complexities of the topic Yes | No

Explores specific topic(s) extensively Yes | No

Defines/describes/models key factors Yes | No

Breadth Feedback

Identifies the big picture Yes | No

Examines span of topic knowledge Yes | No

Deliberates various viewpoints or sides Yes | No

Logic Feedback

Makes sound, rational connections Yes | No

Reasons well, orderly, and cohesively Yes | No

Draws sensible and reliable conclusions Yes | No

Significance Feedback

Discusses impact/importance of topic Yes | No

Identifies implications and magnitude Yes | No

Considers meaning and consequence Yes | No

Fairness Feedback

Discloses information fully and fairly Yes | No

Represents others’ views objectively Yes | No

Minimizes bias and promotes inclusivity Yes | No

Sufficiency Feedback

Cites ample evidence-based support Yes | No

Discloses gaps or missing information Yes | No

Produces a sense of completeness Yes | No

Two Areas of Strength in the Article

Include sufficient detail and evidence-based support from the article.

1. Strength Area:

2. Strength Area:

Two Areas for Content-Related Improvement in the Article

Include sufficient detail and evidence-based support from the article. Provide supporting links, resources, or other means, as applicable and appropriate.

1. Content-Related Area for Improvement:

2. Content-Related Area for Improvement:

Two Alternate Word Choices

Identify two words in the article that could be replaced for improved readability. Select a word you are familiar with or use a thesaurus to identify synonyms. Identify the word and the location (e.g., Paragraph 2, Sentence 3).

· Original Word (and Location)

· Substitute Word:

· Original Word (and Location)

· Substitute Word:

Two Alternate Sentence Structures

Select two sentences that may be enhanced with revision. Copy and paste the original sentences in this template and provide the altered sentence structure. You are encouraged to explain why you made the change (e.g., The most important words were moved to the start of the sentence as detailed by Handley(2014) in the fifth chapter of Everybody Writes).

· #1 Original Sentence:

· #1 Revised Sentence:

· #2 Original Sentence:

· #2 Revised Sentence:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *