Grading of Journal Reviews

After reading over the first set of reviews, I have decided to subdivide points by four categories. Those categories are 1) Relevance, 2) Content, 3) Translation, and 4) Style.

Relevance refers to the degree to which the chosen paper is relevant to the corresponding lecture material. For the first review, the focus of the lecture material was on sound production, analysis, transmission, and reception. Reviews of papers centered on other topics, such as signal function and evolution, typically received fewer points for this category.

Content refers to how well the information provided in the review summarizes the aims, methods, results and inferences in the paper. The key issue is whether enough information is provided for the reader to understand what was done and what was concluded.

Translation refers to the degree to which you explain how the paper relates to material presented in lecture or the textbook. To receive full credit, the review should comment on whether the results of the study support, extend, or contradict information that was presented in class or in the book.

Style refers to the clarity, conciseness and readability of the review. To receive full credit the review should contain well-organized paragraphs, complete sentences, and correctly spelled words. The complete journal citation for the article should be given in a concise and consistent way.

I have assigned 5 points to each of these four categories. Consequently, if you receive less than 5 for a particular category, you can interpret that to mean that I think you could have done a better job in that area.

Rewrite: For the first review, I will accept rewrites from anyone who wishes to improve their score. However, in order to get a higher score for Relevance, you would have to pick a new paper if you received less than 5. To receive credit, you will need to submit your rewrite by March 5.