Project Peer Review
due Wed, Nov 17 at 11:59pm
Critically reviewing others’ work is a crucial part of the scientific process, and STA 210 is no exception. Each group has been given read access to another group’s repo to review and provide feedback on their project draft. This review is intended to help you create a high quality final project, as well as give you experience reading and constructively critiquing the work of others.
The peer review comments are due in GitHub by Wed, Nov 17 at 11:59pm.
Getting started
Click here to see which project your team is reviewing.
In GitHub, search the repositories for project, and you should see the repo for the project you’re reviewing. You will be able to read the files in the repo and post issues, but you cannot push changes to the repo. You will have access to the repo until the deadline for the peer review.
Reviewing the draft
Carefully read the project draft, and consider the questions below as you read it.
Once you’ve read the draft, you will submit the review for each part by opening new Issues in the team’s repo. To open and submit an issue:
- Go to the team’s repo and click Issues.
Type your response to each question.
When you’ve completed the review, click Submit new issue, and you are done with that part of the review.
- Repeat this for all four parts of the review.
Peer review questions
Your response to each question in the peer review has two parts:
1️⃣ Selection of one of the following:
- Yes: The item is clearly and accurately completed in the draft.
- Somewhat: There is an attempt to complete the item in the draft; however, it is incomplete or there are some inaccuracies.
- No: There is no attempt to complete the item in the draft, or there are major inaccuracies.
2️⃣ Brief comment about your selection.
- If you responded Yes, briefly summarize the answer from the draft. For example, if you answer yes that the draft includes citations for outside research, briefly summarize what the outside research is.
- If you responded Somewhat or No, briefly summarize what is incomplete or inaccurate. In other words, briefly summarize why you did not respond Yes to that item.
Issue 1: Introduction + Data
- Is the research question and goal of the report clearly stated?
- Does the introduction provide appropriate background context and motivation for a general reader? This includes citations for any claims or previous research mentioned.
- Is the original source of the data stated and cited?
- Is it clear when and how the data was originally collected?
- Are the observations and variables that are relevant to the analysis clearly described? At a minimum, the observations, response variable, and predictor variables in the final model should be clearly described.
- Include any additional comments or suggestions on the introduction and data description.
Issue 2: Exploratory data analysis
- Is the data cleaning and data wrangling process clearly described? This includes how the group handled missing data, created new variables, reduced the number of levels for categorical variables, etc.
- Do the visualizations follow the guidelines we’ve discussed in STA 210? This includes using plots that are appropriate for the data, having proper axis labels, titles, etc.
- Are any tables and figures clear, effective, and informative? Are they neatly printed with a reasonable number of digits displayed?
- Should any visualizations, figures, or tables be eliminated, or are there any new visualizations, tables, or figures that should be added?
- Include any additional comments or suggestions for the exploratory data analysis.
Issue 3: Methodology + Results
- Do the regression methods (linear or logistic regression) match the research question(s) and available data? If not, point out areas for further work.
- Are the methods described in enough detail that the work could be replicated by someone else? Is it clear what approach and model were used to evaluate hypotheses of interest? If not, point out areas for further work.
- Is the model selection accurately performed, if at all?
- What type of diagnostic methods were used to check any modeling conditions, and are you satisfied the conditions of the model are valid? Should any additional analyses be performed?
- Did the group consider any interaction terms?
- Does the report contain a correct and effective interpretation of the results provided? Is all information needed to substantiate the results and conclusions included? If not, point out areas for further work.
Applying what you’ve learned to your project
Discuss the following as a group. You do not need to submit a response to this question.
After giving feedback to this group, what is one thing you want to change or continue working on for your report?
Submission
The peer review will be graded on the extent to which it comprehensively and constructively addresses the components of the partner team’s report: the research context and motivation, exploratory data analysis, reproducibility, and any inference, modeling, or conclusions.
You will be graded based on the feedback in the issues submitted on GitHub.