SECONDARY EDIT REPORT 2003-2004

Pac Rim Law & Policy Journal

 

Author:

Secondary Editor:

Date:

 

This report is to be submitted by the Secondary Editor (SE) to the author with each Comment draft exchanged between the author and SE (no less than two times).  Except in extreme circumstances, the SE 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.  The SE will review the Comment at least two times over the time allotted for secondary 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 SEs primary responsibility is to refine organization and style.  This is a more detail oriented editing process than primary editing.  The secondary editing stage focuses on the analysis and structure of the comment, examining the paper at the paragraph level.  The SE should also ensure that a faculty advisor has reviewed draft and the author has incorporated the advisor’s comments.  If the author does not have a faculty advisor at this point, or has not been able to get their faculty advisor to edit their Comment, let the ECE or EIC know immediately.

 

 

Initial Review Issues:

 

1.            The author’s faculty advisor is _____________________.

2.            The author has received feedback from their advisor and incorporated that feedback into the current draft. __yes __no.

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 secondary editor is responsible for doing a preemption check on this Comment.  That check has been done. __ yes  __ no

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

 

 

Thesis:

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comment Organization and Content

 

  1. Is the Comment in appropriate Pac Rim format and style?
  2. Does the Comment have a clearly defined abstract, introduction, analysis and conclusion?
  3. Is the overall structure and organization of the Comment logical, consistent and well thought out?

 

 

Introduction

 

  1. Does the introduction attract readership?
  2. Does the introduction accurately present the topics that are going to be discussed in the Comment?
  3. Is the thesis statement clearly articulated in a logical position within the Comment?
  4. Is there a roadmap for the Comment at the end of the introduction?

 

 

Background

 

  1. Is the background comprehensive?
  2. Is it too detailed?
  3. Is it organized logically and consistently both at the section and subsection/paragraph level?
  4. Does each paragraph have a topic sentence?
  5. Does each section flow logically into the next?
  6. Are the footnotes present in appropriate places?

 

 

Analysis

 

  1. Does the background transition fluidly into the analysis section?
  2. Is the thesis supported and revisited throughout the analysis section?
  3. Does each paragraph have a topic sentence?
  4. Are there gaps in the logical progression of the piece?
  5. Are footnotes present in appropriate places?
  6. Does the author support the analysis with appropriate legal and policy authority?
  7. Have important alternative positions to those taken in the thesis been explored?
  8. Is all analysis supported by information in the background sections?
  9. Has the author re-read all major sources and accurately represented them?

 

 

Conclusion

 

  1. Is the conclusion reflective of the analysis in the Comment?
  2. Does the conclusion reiterate the thesis?
  3. Is the Comment of appropriate length?

Comment-Wide Structural Issues

 

  1. Is the structure logical and parallel?
  2. Are major points appropriately emphasized through thoughtful placement within the Comment?
  3. Does every section have a heading of appropriate length and character?
  4. Is every major section introduced with a roadmap paragraph?  Have all tangential issues been moved to the footnotes?
  5. Are all terms of art defined and consistent throughout the Comment?
  6. Are complete and cross-referenced citations present?