| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Finally, you can manage your Google Docs, uploads, and email attachments (plus Dropbox and Slack files) in one convenient place. Claim a free account, and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio (from the makers of PBworks) can automatically organize your content for you.

View
 

Peer Review Guidelines

Page history last edited by Bal 9 years, 7 months ago

Peer-reviewer response form

Please use this form to comment on more general issues.This form is meant to facilitate your review, so please comment on as many areas as you find feasible with the particular draft.

 

You can write comments on language or specific issues within the text of the draft article. To make your comments as specific as possible, please refer to the page number where appropriate. If you copy these paragraphs into your file, please make sure to delete them and send only the feedback. We would be greateful if you could make your comments as comprehensible as possible.

 

1. PLEASE START BY POINTING OUT ONE OR MORE ASPECTS OF THE DRAFT THAT ARE WELL DONE. You can certainly do this under the specific questions below, but just in case those specific questions don't cover the most effective aspects of the draft, the beginning of your feedback is the best place to give the author those credits. Please also remember to phrase your advice in a constructive manner instead of critiquing anything in the writing. Please focus on the writing, not the writer. 

What is best in this draft: 

 

 

2. OVERVIEW OF THE ASPECT(S) THAT MUST BE IMPROVED. Please consider putting in perspective for the writer, in one or two sentences, one or two key issues in the current draft that the writer must further work on, before going on to details. This overview also helps you to prioritize your comments as you move on.

What needs to be improved: 

 

 

3. Is the article in the current draft relevant to the goal and purpose of the Journal? Does the subject and argument of the draft resonate in light of the vision and mission of NELTA? If you think the entire article is irrelevant from the perspective of readers most of whom are interested in the discourse and practice of ELT mainly in the context of Nepal, please explain. If you believe the draft is partly relevant, please describe which aspect(s) of it could be further developed and which should be eliminated, condensed, or revised. 

Comment:

 

 

 

4. Does the article contribute to new knowledge in local and/or global ELT context? If the article does not have substantial point or points to make, suggest what directions its revision might take. If some parts of the draft contain original/significant points than others, point them out and ask the author to expand, condense, or eliminate specific sections or aspects of the writing. In particular, ask the author to condense any over-elaborate summary or catalogue of current research, common wisdom in ELT, or background setting that delays the author's getting to his or her argument/point. 

Comment:

 

 

 

5. Does the author clearly state the thesis and/or purpose of his/her article? Does that framework come early enough and do you think it will be understandable to the average reader? If the statement/indication of what the article is about is hidden, delayed, or overly complex, point it out and give any suggestion you might have.  

Comment:

 

4. Does the author draw on the academic/professional literature on the subject? Would you suggest a review of literature, or would it be enough to disperse support drawn from appropriate sources? Do you think the draft need to cite more sources? Please pay particular attention to whether there is any apparently uncited source in the draft--which is a crucial part of support by reviewers. If you think there is this problem, please ask the author if they forgot to cite.

Comment:

 

 

 

7. Does the draft have consistent parts that make its organization a coherent whole? If it seems to lack focus, please suggest what can be done. Please also comment on whether the title clearly reflects the content of the article.

Comment:

 

 

 

8. Do the evidence and arguments adequately address research questions and support author's thesis? Do you think the writers needs to find more sources, add examples or explanations, or clarify some of the key issues? Please note that when you suggestion expansion of more significant aspects of the draft, you might also want to suggest condensation or elimination of some of the less significant parts. 

Comment:

 

 

 

9. Are the references cited correctly using the APA style of citation? Please refer to the submission guidelines for detail.

Comment:

 

 

 

10 Is the references section in APA style as well? Please try to demonstrate one and ask the writer to do the rest. 

Comment:

 

 

11. Can you hear and follow the author's voice through the details of the draft? If the author's position is dominated by the detail or if the text or parts of it are affected by the style, formality, or tone of language, please indicate and explain. 

Comment:

 

 

 

12. Does the article comprise of standard sections used in applied linguistics and TESL/TEFL field (e.g. Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion)? If the author has used a different pattern, do you think that is necessary or justified?

Comment:

 

 

 

13. Are the tables/figures displayed and labeled correctly?

Comment:

 

 

 

14. Feedback on any other aspect or area of writing in this draft. 

Comment:   

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.