Getting Started The Industry Article written in the previous workshop provided you with an opportunity to explore an academic topic of your choosing based on the needs of y
Getting Started
The Industry Article written in the previous workshop provided you with an opportunity to explore an academic topic of your choosing based on the needs of your applied doctoral project and or a specific business-related topic of interest. As you wait for feedback from your facilitator, you will actively pursue feedback from your fellow classmates by sharing a draft of the article for peer review. Consider this submission an opportunity to strengthen and enhance your writing skills as well as collaborate with peers through the sharing of insights and the exchange of recommendations to enhance one another’s writing.
For this assignment, you will submit your Industry Article for review by another student. Likewise, you will also conduct a review of another student’s article. Throughout the review process, seek to incorporate the knowledge and information you have gleaned from the texts and resources and writing practice in this course. This task affords you the benefit of a peer review where multivariant perspectives and viewpoints are used to analyze and critique your work in a safe, productive, and collegial way—as you reciprocate in the same process. There is no expectation that anyone is an expert; indeed, the goal of this assignment is to share and receive feedback and affirm good writing habits.
Upon successful completion of this discussion, you will be able to:
- Demonstrate doctoral level writing skills.
Background Information
Learn More about Becoming a Certified Reviewer
Want to learn more about becoming a certified reviewer? Seek sage advice from other peer reviewers who are in-the-know. Check out the scholarly PUBLONS(new tab) website housing a lot of resources, and even a free academy for wanna-be reviewers.
- Susanne van der Veene’s quick-read post: Why is Peer Review important?(PDF document)
- Publons Academy(new tab) — a free training program with certification following successful completion of 10 modules. Learn to be a reviewer!
- Discover journals and conferences(new tab) on Publons.
- Look up other reviewers(new tab) — some with hundreds of reviews to their credit.
- Connect at #PeerViews(new tab) to gain advice from the pros.
Instructions
- Review the rubric to make sure you understand the criteria for earning your grade.
- Review The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools.
- Read chapters 49–59 (pp. 150–180) in Everybody Writes.
- Upload your Industry Article assignment as a Word document by DAY TWO (2) to give your student reviewer ample time to complete their review. Include the following in the initial discussion post which will help to establish context for the reviewer and others in the course.
- the title of the article,
- the name and NAICS code for the selected industry, and
- the name and hyperlink for at least one industry journal editorial guidelines and submissions criteria.
- Write a paragraph for the initial post to include the title of the article and summarization of it to help establish context for the reviewer and other readers in the course.
- The instructor will assign each student to a specific student paper for conducting a peer review. Do not conduct a peer review until the instructor has assigned you an article.
- Download the Article Peer-Review Template(Word document).
- Download the Industry Article assigned for your peer review.
- Complete the peer review using the template as the guide, following the prompts below:
- Carefully read the instructions on the Article Peer-Review Template.
- Insert your full name in the header or the footer of the blank template.
- Save a copy of the template for use when conducting the peer review.
- For the file-naming convention, use:
(Reviewer Last Name (You)_Abbreviated Title of the Article_Other Student’s Last Name
Example: Jones_Falling Profits in the Airline Industry_Jackson
- Complete the template in its entirety, assessing the other student’s article based on the critical thinking intellectual standards criteria, as adopted from The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking, and the other comment sections in the template.
- Include appropriate, evidence-based, honest and respectful feedback using single-line spacing in the areas provided in the template.
- Once the review is completed, review and edit, then save each Word document template as a PDF file.
- Submit a PDF copy of your peer review in the discussion forum by the end of the workshop.
- Write a brief paragraph response in the discussion forum summarizing your peer review to the student.
- Upload the PDF copy of the completed Peer-Review Template to the discussion response.
- You are encouraged to engage in dialogue with other students as well in the discussion forum.
6/27/22, 8:26 PM Preview Rubric: 5.2/8.2 Discussion (30 points) – 3SU2022 Craft Academic Writing for Bus (BADM-700-01A) – Indiana Wesleyan University
https://brightspace.indwes.edu/d2l/lp/rubrics/preview.d2l?ou=165026&rubricId=518333&originTool=quicklinks 1/2
5.2/8.2 Discussion (30 points) Course: 3SU2022 Craft Academic Writing for Bus (BADM-700-01A)
Criteria Excellent Competent Needs Improvement
Inadequate/Faili ng
Criterion Score
Peer-
Reviewed
Template
Feedback
/ 2020 points
Makes
excellent
connection to
relevant
content both
inside and
outside of the
student article.
The template
is completed in
its entirety.
18 points
Makes
competent
connection to
relevant
content both
inside and
outside of the
student article.
One item is
incompleted in
the template.
16 points
Needs
improvement
to make clear
and scholarly
connection to
relevant
content both
inside and
outside of the
student article.
Two to three
items are not
completed in
the template.
14 points
Inadequately
makes
connection to
relevant
content both
inside and
outside of the
student article.
Four or more
items are not
completed in
the template.
6/27/22, 8:26 PM Preview Rubric: 5.2/8.2 Discussion (30 points) – 3SU2022 Craft Academic Writing for Bus (BADM-700-01A) – Indiana Wesleyan University
https://brightspace.indwes.edu/d2l/lp/rubrics/preview.d2l?ou=165026&rubricId=518333&originTool=quicklinks 2/2
Total / 30
Overall Score
Criteria Excellent Competent Needs Improvement
Inadequate/Faili ng
Criterion Score
Communicati
on
/ 1010 points
Excellent
communication
when applying
English
Grammar
Standards and
the 7 C's of
writing: clear,
concise,
complete,
correct,
correlated to
the research,
creative, and
with critical
thinking
evidenced.
9 points
Proficient
communication
when applying
English
Grammar
Standards and
the 7 C's of
writing: clear,
concise,
complete,
correct,
correlated to
the research,
creative, and
with critical
thinking
evidenced.
7 points
Emergent
communication
when applying
English
Grammar
Standards and
the 7 C's of
writing: clear,
concise,
complete,
correct,
correlated to
the research,
creative, and
with critical
thinking
evidenced.
6 points
Inadequate
communication
when applying
English
Grammar
Standards and
the 7 C's of
writing: clear,
concise,
complete,
correct,
correlated to
the research,
creative, and
with critical
thinking
evidenced.
Excellent 32 points minimum
Competent 28 points minimum
Needs Improvement 25 points minimum
Inadequate/Failing 0 points minimum
,
Article Peer-Review: Using the Essential Intellectual Standards Criteria for the peer-review of articles.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 FeedbackElaborates where needed Yes | No Incorporates excellent examples Yes | No Describes or illustrates what is meant Yes | No Accuracy FeedbackPresents supporting/contrasting views Yes | No Conveys research findings accurately Yes | No Verifies with other information findings Yes | No Precision FeedbackProvides specificity where needed Yes | No Furnishes sufficient details Yes | No Expresses proper amount of exactness Yes | No Relevance FeedbackCorrelates content to the topic(s) Yes | No Arouses interest, is applicable/current Yes | No Develops content suitable for journal Yes | No Depth FeedbackAddresses the complexities of the topic Yes | No Explores specific topic(s) extensively Yes | No Defines/describes/models key factors Yes | No Breadth FeedbackIdentifies the big picture Yes | No Examines span of topic knowledge Yes | No Deliberates various viewpoints or sides Yes | No Logic FeedbackMakes sound, rational connections Yes | No Reasons well, orderly, and cohesively Yes | No Draws sensible and reliable conclusions Yes | No Significance FeedbackDiscusses impact/importance of topic Yes | No Identifies implications and magnitude Yes | No Considers meaning and consequence Yes | No Fairness FeedbackDiscloses information fully and fairly Yes | No Represents others’ views objectively Yes | No Minimizes bias and promotes inclusivity Yes | No Sufficiency FeedbackCites 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 ArticleInclude sufficient detail and evidence-based support from the article. 1. Strength Area: 2. Strength Area: Two Areas for Content-Related Improvement in the ArticleInclude 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 ChoicesIdentify 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 StructuresSelect 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: |
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
