Consider yourself a mid-level analyst within the U.S. State Department. Another analyst in your section has been working on a Policy Paper to recommend a policy for the U.S. in regard to a particular issue. Your section chief tasked you to review this paper for him. He called this a Peer Review. Although you are very busy with other requirements, you drop everything to respond to this new tasking.
Within a government agency, a Peer Review may do one or more things. First, it may lighten a supervisors workload. Second, it could give a colleague helpful feedback and improve the quality of their product. And third, it should help to keep people informed about issues other than those on which they are working.
Remember, high-quality government papers use a distinctive writing style. The writing is clear and straightforward, using only as many words as necessary. This style avoids obscure words, inflated vocabulary, passive voice, and confusing sentence construction. It is simple, direct, and well organized. It tells the reader the purpose and the structure of the paper. These papers should not be written like mystery novels, inspirational testimonials, or creative short stories. The main goal of official writing is to put the content across clearly and concisely.
A Peer Review evaluates a paper written by someone of about the same rank or position. A good review identifies the main points of a paper and assesses the quality and sufficiency of the evidence presented in support of the main points. The review should also comment on how well the paper is organized and written.
In organizing your Peer Review, consider the following outline:
I. Introduction
II. Main Point(s)
III. Evidence
IV. Writing
V. Conclusion
The introduction should accomplish at least three things. One is to identify some basic information, such as: the title of the paper under review, the authors name and agency (if provided), the date of the paper, and the date of your review. The second element in the introduction is to state the purpose of your paper: Who is the reader? What will the reader gain from your paper? Why should they read it? Finally, briefly list how your paper is organized.
The second section is to clearly identify the main point(s) of the original paper. One way to do this is to quote it. However, some writers do not present their main point very clearly. Do you have to hunt for it? Since you are reviewing a Policy Paper, the main point should be the recommendation. Is it stated clearly? Does it make sense? Is it realistic?
Next, you need to describe and evaluate the paper’s evidence. This section is the most important and extensive part of your paper. In your review, consider the following questions: What evidence did the author present in support of the recommendation? Are the sources legitimate, scholarly books and journals (good)? Or are they advocacy web sites and blogs (bad)? Were viable alternative courses of action considered? Were logical criteria applied systematically to the alternative options? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence? What is missing?
Fourth, evaluate the writing in the paper. Consider the following: Is the paper well organized? Are the paragraphs structured clearly? Is it grammatically correct? Does it follow the writing guidelines described in the third paragraph above?
Finally, in your conclusion, clearly state your overall evaluation of the article. Do you concur with its recommendation and the analysis that produced the recommendation? Include your recommendation about who should or should not read the paper and why. Should your section chief see it? Do you recommend he forward it to the Secretary of State? Or should it first be revised or rewritten?
As you prepare to conduct the Peer Review you notice its author is someone you know in your section. In fact, you consider them a friend. This makes you uncomfortable and uncertain how to proceed. On the one hand you do not want to make them look bad with the section chief. On the other hand, you do not want to look weak and foolish with the section chief either. If you submit an overly favorable review on a paper that is obviously flawed, that will not reflect highly on you. So, you commit yourself to perform an honest and professional Peer Review.
Specific Requirements:
Write a Peer Review Paper on the attached paper
Use a title page
A bibliography is optional; use one if your quote or cite other authors, such as our texts
1000-2000 words of text, single spaced, with double spacing between paragraphs
MS Word document, Times New Roman, font size 12, 1 inch margins, use page numbers
Use the document “Guidelines for Citing Sources” for formatting parenthetical references within the text and for formatting entries in the bibliography at the end of the paper, if needed
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]