Peer Editing Rubric for the Qualitative Article Review Author of Review: Corinne Blake Peer Editor: Linda Tajima Summary 2.5 2 1.5 1 0 Total Purpose of the study Purpose of the clearly and concisely identified. Purpose of the study identified. Purpose of the study is unclear. No discussion of the purpose of the study. Incomplete 2.5 Description of Participants/Sample Thorough description of participants/sample, including sample selection. Good description of participants sample and sample selection procedures. Acceptable description of participants sample and sample selection. Little, if any, description of sample. No mention of sampling procedures. Incomplete 1.5 Research Design Research Design documented with indicators of why this is an appropriate design. Research Design documented with a general recognition of why this is an appropriate design. Research Design documented. No research design indicated. Incomplete 2 Data Collection & Analysis Method of data collection and analysis indicated and explained thoroughly. Method of data collection & analysis indicated and somewhat explained. Method of data collection and analyzing date unclear No method of data collection and analysis indicated. Incomplete 2 Results Tightly focused writing summarizing the results of the study Generally focused summary of the results of the study Somewhat focused summary of the results of the study Scattered random writing without focus on the results of the study Incomplete 2 Analysis Further Research Provides multiple directions for further research. Provides a few directions for further research. Directions for further research are unclear or inconsistent with findings. Incomplete discussion of further research. Incomplete 2.5
Validity/rival hypotheses Complete yet concise discussion of the validity/rival hypotheses Concise and generally recognizes most aspects of the validity/rival hypotheses hypotheses tend to be one-sided with aspects of the validity/rival hypotheses missing. Incomplete hypotheses discussion Incomplete 2.5 Original insight/Criticism Insight/Criticism on fact, research, or scholarly authority. Generally good evidence given in support of opinion. Evidence only somewhat supports opinion. Opinion entirely unsupported. Incomplete 2 Implications Complete yet concise discussion of implications of research on practice Identifies implications for practice. Unclear implications for practice. No connection between research and practice. Incomplete 2.5 Writing/Style Writing & APA Free of spelling, syntax, and grammatical errors. Well-edited material. APA style applied consistently throughout Only a few errors of minor significance with grammar and APA A number of errors. Not well edited. Many errors. Poor grammar and sentence structure as well as APA errors Incomplete 1.5 Total 21/25 Peer Comments: Overall, good flow of an article review. The review covers the requirements. Following are provided for your information/action if you wish to incorporate them. APA style is not correct in many areas and various errors found. All quotes always need author, year and page number. Sometimes page number provided, but not always. Check title page. Font for Running head: needs to be Times New Roman and note need for lowercase h in the word head. Right margin is off on page 1. Second paragraph is wordy and confusing. You initially state the number of participants include 44 6th grade students (check the correct way numbers should be expressed numerically APA style- pp. 111-112 in