Open Peer Commentary

 A. Please read the three book reviews attached and prepare an “Open Peer Commentary” in response. Try to answer these questions: 1) How do the reviewers assess Baker’s book? 2) Do you agree or disagree with the reviewers? Why or why not? 3) Would you add anything to their reviews? Please use the above questions to organize open peer commentary (you may even use them as subheadings in the essay). Use the style use by AMA Journal of Ethics B. Let the following guide you when writing the paper 1. Is the paper clearly written, well organized and does it offer the reader a logical, easily followed development of ideas? 2. Has the paper been carefully proof-read, corrected and free of mechanical errors (grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc.)? 3. Does the introduction give the reader an idea what to expect by describing the scope, focus and intent of the paper? 4. Does the paper have a succinct conclusion that focuses the reader’s attention on the main ideas? 5. Is the research base and use of scholarly resources sufficient to support the task undertaken? 6. Is the thesis of the paper clear and developed in sufficient depth that the conclusions drawn seem warranted? In other words, is there a clear, persuasive argument being made that reflects both the complexity of the subject and alternative points of view? 7. Is the documentation appropriate and the style of notes and bibliography correct and complete? 9. Does the analysis of the topic indicate both a clear understanding of the issues/concepts involved and provide a substantive contribution from the student’s own thinking? Please pay close attention to #2 above. The essays should be generally free of any mechanical/spelling errors. Proofread the essays at least twice.