PRIMARY EDIT REPORT 2003-2004

Pac Rim Law & Policy Journal

 

Author:

Primary Editor:

Date:

 

This report is to be submitted by the Primary Editor (PE) to the author with each Comment draft exchanged between the author and PE (no less than two times).  Except in extreme circumstances, the PE is expected to return this report and any other comments to the author within one week of the date the author submits a Comment draft.  Ideally, the PE will review the Comment three times over the time allotted for primary editing as listed on the comments schedule.  After the author has read and implemented its suggestions, this report should be placed in the author’s binder. 

 

The PE’s primary responsibility is to address “macro” structural concerns and ensure that the author has thought through their topic, addressing all necessary aspects of fact and analysis in a logical order.  The primary editor should not focus on grammar, punctuation, bluebook format, etc.  This report provides the PE specific criteria with which to evaluate the author’s Comment, and should be used as a checklist and guide for the PE while editing the Comment. 

 

 

Initial Review Issues:

 

      1.   The author’s faculty advisor is _____________________.

      2.   They have met with their advisor __ times.

      3.   The Comment is written on a topic that will be acceptable for the Pac Rim Journal (timeliness, country/region, breadth, interest, etc.) __ yes __ no

      4.   The PE is responsible for doing a preemption check on this Comment.  That check has been done. __ yes  __ no

      5.   Are there foreseeable problems with source quality or quantity? __ yes  __ no.  If yes, please discuss with the author.

 

 

Thesis:

 

In the space below, the PE should describe what he or she believes to be the author’s thesis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is the thesis clearly articulated in the proper place within the Comment?  If no, please explain.

 

 

General Comment Organization

 

1.      Does the author have a clear and well-developed organization to their Comment?

 

2.      Has the author provided a roadmap for their Comment in the introduction?

 

3.      What percent of the Comment is background material?  ___%   No more than 50% of the Comment should be background.

 

4.      Does the background have all the elements necessary to provide a foundation for the author’s analysis?

 

5.      Is it evident that the author is making his or her own analytic statements and is not writing a report on current law and policy as it stands?  In other words, is there some prospective objective to the paper?

 

6.      Does the author have a conclusion?

 

7.      Does the author make all necessary legal arguments and include all logical steps to reach their conclusion?

 

 

Analysis

 

  1. Is the analysis organized logically and strategically?

 

  1. Does the analysis support the thesis?

 

  1. Are all necessary and logical points of the analysis included?

 

  1. Are all issues supported with legal or policy authority?

 

  1. Is there unrelated/superfluous analysis that should be been removed?

 

  1. Have all logical opposing positions been explored and/or refuted?

 

 

Comment-wide Issues

 

  1. Is the thesis clear and consistent throughout the Comment?

 

  1. Are the background and analysis sections clearly separated, or are they combined? 

 

  1. Is the reasoning and organization logical and consistent?

 

  1. Are the paragraphs organized and focused?