Communications Got Milk Campaign Peer Review

In Week 9 you will email myself and an assigned peer a draft of your peer. I will assign you a peer earlier in that week in an announcement on course site. You should email your peer and your instructor a copy of your paper. By the end of the next lesson week you should email your own comments back to both the instructor and your peer.  Please give big-picture feedback as opposed to pointing out minor grammatical errors and so forth (the author should be doing their own proofreading or seeking assistance on that front elsewhere).

Feedback to your peer should focus on these areas:

1. Introduction: Does the paper adequately describe the overall purpose of the paper 
2. Literature Review: Does it provide a comprehensive summary of the theoretical framework and scholarly literature reviewed for the case (at least 10 sources cited).
3. Method: Does the paper identify the type of content analysis that will be conducted and discusses how the content that will be analyzed; provides a rationale for content selected; describes how content will be collected; briefly identifies qualitative content analysis as the method of data analysis.
4. Results: Do the results clearly reflect a thematic or narrative analysis through the use of quotations or campaign resources 
5. Discussion: Does it provide comparisons/contrasts to previous literature and/or the theoretical framework AND practical lessons learned and/or recommendations you have for how the individuals and/or organizations involved could have used theory to more strategically organize the campaign to realize more favorable outcomes.

Peer reviews should be completed as quickly as you can while remaining comprehensive to give folks an opportunity to incorporate feedback in their revisions. Remember, the goal is to help the person author the best possible paper that they can and you should provide comments that assist with that goal.  Also, remember that different papers are in different stages of completion so some people may need more structural feedback and others more conceptual. 

Although there are a number of resources you look to for guidance on “how-to” peer review, the American Journal Experts website (????????) has some useful information to consider.