Below are the comments on a paper that I submitted to ICA. This was a blind peer review. Reviewer 3 did not like it very much (oh yeah?) the main complaint is about my use of passive voice...
One ticket to New Orleans please. hehe

2004 Convention
Communication Law and Policy - Review Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Author(s): me

(Reviewer 1 of 3)
Reviewer's Comments:

This is an important and interesting area of study. However, the paper could have been improved by a more complex discussion of theoretical conceptions of public space and by at least some discussion of current legal doctrine in the area of public forum.

Reviewer's Recommendation:

Accept this paper as submitted.

Reviewer's "Importance of the topic" Rating:
Based on a scale from 1 (Cannot Recommend) to 10 (Highly Recommended):

9

Reviewer's "Integration of relevant theory/research/scholarship" Rating:
Based on a scale from 1 (Cannot Recommend) to 10 (Highly Recommended):

7

Reviewer's "Strength in applying the relevant method or research approach" Rating:
Based on a scale from 1 (Cannot Recommend) to 10 (Highly Recommended):

10

Reviewer's "Quality of writing/presentation" Rating:
Based on a scale from 1 (Cannot Recommend) to 10 (Highly Recommended):

9

Reviewer's "Quality of the contribution to knowledng" Rating:
Based on a scale from 1 (Cannot Recommend) to 10 (Highly Recommended):

9

Reviewer's "Overall rating" Rating:
Based on a scale from 1 (Cannot Recommend) to 10 (Highly Recommended):

8



(Reviewer 2 of 3)
Reviewer's Comments:

Very well written case study. The author, however, spends too much of the first part of the paper on a chronological review of events. The paper does not really "take off" until the more thematic analysis of the Council discussions is offered.

Reviewer's Recommendation:

Accept this paper as submitted.

Reviewer's "Importance of the topic" Rating:
Based on a scale from 1 (Cannot Recommend) to 10 (Highly Recommended):

8

Reviewer's "Integration of relevant theory/research/scholarship" Rating:
Based on a scale from 1 (Cannot Recommend) to 10 (Highly Recommended):

7

Reviewer's "Strength in applying the relevant method or research approach" Rating:
Based on a scale from 1 (Cannot Recommend) to 10 (Highly Recommended):

7

Reviewer's "Quality of writing/presentation" Rating:
Based on a scale from 1 (Cannot Recommend) to 10 (Highly Recommended):

8

Reviewer's "Quality of the contribution to knowledng" Rating:
Based on a scale from 1 (Cannot Recommend) to 10 (Highly Recommended):

7

Reviewer's "Overall rating" Rating:
Based on a scale from 1 (Cannot Recommend) to 10 (Highly Recommended):

7


(Reviewer 3 of 3)
Reviewer's Comments:

I think the paper would be strengthened if it were rewritten to take out every use of the passive voice, or at least as many as possible. The passive voice disguises agency -- e.g., when "behaviors ... were blamed," who did the blaming? And the paper is about group conflict, so it should be clear to the reader who's doing what.

Reviewer's Recommendation:

Reject this paper.

Reviewer's "Importance of the topic" Rating:
Based on a scale from 1 (Cannot Recommend) to 10 (Highly Recommended):

3

Reviewer's "Integration of relevant theory/research/scholarship" Rating:
Based on a scale from 1 (Cannot Recommend) to 10 (Highly Recommended):

5

Reviewer's "Strength in applying the relevant method or research approach" Rating:
Based on a scale from 1 (Cannot Recommend) to 10 (Highly Recommended):

5

Reviewer's "Quality of writing/presentation" Rating:
Based on a scale from 1 (Cannot Recommend) to 10 (Highly Recommended):

3

Reviewer's "Quality of the contribution to knowledng" Rating:
Based on a scale from 1 (Cannot Recommend) to 10 (Highly Recommended):

3

Reviewer's "Overall rating" Rating:
Based on a scale from 1 (Cannot Recommend) to 10 (Highly Recommended):

4