PHYS 280 :: Physics Illinois :: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Research Paper Collegial Response (RPCR)

Electronic submission due Friday Mar. 13 at 10pm

Main Task: Respond from Your Expert Perspective to a Colleague’s Research Paper Proposal

Your colleague is relying on you to contribute your expertise to help explain and explore the nuclear global security problem about which he or she is writing for the Illini Journal of International Security. Your feedback matters. Your collegial response, and the instructional staff’s PASS, will help your colleague to draft a better research paper.

The RPCR will be graded as a writing assignment using this rubric. Here is an example of a good RPCR from a technical (engineer) perspective and one from a policy (political scientist) perspective. (Remember, your RPCR should be single-spaced; examples from past semesters did not have that formatting requirement.)

Detail

The collegial response you are being asked to write in this assignment differs from the peer review you have done so far in this class and may have done in other classes, but it takes the place of our usual peer review.

Since your colleague has limited expertise but has been tasked to write an article that incorporates both technical and policy perspectives, they have turned to you—someone with complementary expertise—for help. As determined by your selection of expertise for the RPP, if your expertise is in engineering, the colleague with whom you are paired will be a political scientist; conversely, if your expertise is in political science, the colleague with whom you are paired will be an engineer.

Your mission is to use your expertise to help your colleague to develop his or her understanding, description, and analysis of the problem in nuclear global security from the perspective of your alternative expertise.

Your colleague remains the sole author (practically speaking) with sole responsibility for the article. They can choose to incorporate as much or as little of the suggestions they receive from you as they think best.

RPCR Development Process

Step 1) Acquire a copy of your colleague’s research paper proposal (RPPv2) and analyze it to ensure that you understand the topic, research question, thesis, and analysis that inform the article he or she is preparing to write.

Step 2) Reread your colleague’s RPP. As you do, make a list of the issues raised for your expert perspective by your colleague’s analysis. For example, if your colleague has written a proposal from the perspective of a political scientist, consider what technical issues are raised by the political and policy concerns he or she discusses. Alternatively, if your colleague has written a proposal from a technical perspective, consider what political and policy concerns might impact associated nuclear security concerns. (You may need to do some light research reading to identify issues.)

Step 3) Identify the three most important issues from the perspective of your expertise about which your colleague needs to know in order to write an effective article that analyzes both the technical and political science perspectives of the nuclear security problem he or she has identified. Read up on them in your lecture notes, class readings, and other sources as needed, and then plan what you want to say about them.

For each of the three important issues you have identified using your expertise, write 1–2 well-crafted, substantial paragraphs, that

  1. begin with a bolded heading that names the issue;
  2. state and explain the nature of the issue;
  3. discuss how the issue relates to the nuclear security problem your colleague is writing about (be specific—refer directly to the ideas expressed and phrasing used in your colleague’s proposal);
  4. explain what aspects of the issue might impact the way the problem has developed, is being approached, and/or is likely to evolve; and
  5. consider how the issue might impact possible solutions to the nuclear security problem.

Please cite or recommend (allowable) sources from your field of expertise as they occur to you.

Step 4) Request the AI agent of your choosing to identify and provide a list of three issues (from your expertise perspective) for your colleague to address following the a–e requirements in Step 3. Ask the AI to include allowable and high-quality citations for all its claims. Verify the existence and content of each of the sources. Perform this task only after you have completed the previous step.

Step 5) Include a writer’s memo that responds the following:

  1. Were the issues identified by the AI the same as yours?
  2. Do you think any of the issues identified by the AI is more important than any of the ones you identified? Establish a list of issues (yours and AI’s) in descending order of importance. List the issues using only the headings; it is not necessary to reproduce b–e here.
  3. Were any of the issues raised by the AI among the top three in the list of issues above? If so, for every such an issue, write a paragraph that discusses why this issue is more important than the one you provided.
  4. For every issue raised by the AI that is not among the top three in the list of issues above, write 2-4 sentences that discuss why this issue is not that important.
  5. If there were issues that are the same between the AI and yours, provide a comparison of the content related to points d and e (see Step 3).

Step 6) Create the final version of your collegial response by including only the top three issues identified in Step 5b.

Other Requirements

Scope

Ensure that you are writing from the perspective of your own adopted expertise (political scientist or engineer). Even though it may be tempting, you should not elaborate on any opportunities your colleague may have missed from the basis of his or her own expertise. Assume that he or she will catch these during the revision process.

Format

Make sure that your completed RPCR is no longer than 1 page (single-spaced); efforts that run over will be graded down.

Writer’s Memo

Include a Writer’s Memo (see Step 5) with the following requirements:

  1. Author draft of the response (Step 3)
  2. A link (URL) to the AI prompts used in Step 4
  3. AI draft of the response (Step 4)
  4. Answers, justifications, and comparisons to points 5a–e

The Writer’s Memo will not count toward the page limit.

AI Disclosure Statement

Include an AI disclosure statement. The statement specifies the tool used and briefly describes how the tool was used. It includes a certification that the author takes responsibility for the verification of all facts and content.

Collaboration

Your colleague can choose to list you as an "honorary" secondary author on his or her article (i.e., RPv1 and RPv2) or they can provide a footnote of acknowledgement for your contributions. They may use directly in their article any suggestions you have made in the RPCR, from concepts, evidence, and sources to exact words, phrases, and passages of prose without further specific citation. Of course, you may do the same in your article.

Submission

Submit the electronic copy of RPCR by 10pm on Friday, March 13. You will discuss your RPCR with your research paper partner in writing lab. Please bring an extra copy with you for your colleague. The RPCR will be graded by your writing lab TA using this rubric.