Submitting Design 1 and How to Peer Critique

How to be a good colleague and provide very helpful feedback

Author

Affiliation

Marguerite Butler

School of Life Sciences, University of Hawaii

Turn in your Design 1

1. Please be sure to name the file using the naming convention FirstAuthorLastName_SecondAuthorLastName.pdf so that your peers can find the correct paper to review. Be sure to put the first author first.

For example: “Hasegawa_Kondo.pdf”

2. Post your draft paper on the shared Google Drive by 5pm Monday. [Upload here]

3. Post your final draft by midnight on Tuesday 10/1 [Upload here]

Complete your Peer Critique

Reference materials

• Find your [Review assignment]
• Download your assigned manuscript. [Design 1 google drive folder].
• [Design 1 assignment]

Print out the manuscript so that you can write comments directly on the report.

Read through the [content guidelines].

Read your assigned manuscript. Be a good colleague.

• Your main task is to critique the content - please go through their analysis and look for any big improvements that could help. Catch any errors, and they will be extremely grateful.
• As you go, mark it with brief comments or corrections. Please do not correct each instance of the same type of error. Just point it out the first time.
• Focus on improvements that would provide the biggest payoff. Be explict it (of course, don’t be mean – just state the facts).
• When you receive your critique, it really helps to have a thick skin – we are working together to help each other produce the best final draft possible.

Prepare your ~2 page written critique for the authors.

• Begin your review with a positive statement before going into problems. A critique is mostly negative – that’s just the nature of the beast. As scientists, we are most interested in knowing exactly what is wrong, poorly stated, or unconvincing so that we can correct it. But it makes the medicine a little easier to swallow if you start with something nice.

• Write Major (overall) comments (about one paragraph). What were the major problems? The most significant shortcomings? Was it well-written and clearly organized?

• Write Specific comments. For ideas on what to include for these sections, see Peer Critique guidelines:

  • Content (specific comments on each section)
  • Organization and Structure
  • Style and Grammar
  • Cited References

• In general, pick the most significant comments to write up first. You are not obligated to provide more than two pages (i.e., don’t correcting every little thing, just point out on the first instance, and let the authors learn from finding the rest).

• Evaluate Effectiveness of Collaboration. Did each partner contribute significantly and more or less equally? (can be as short as one sentence, but please elaborate if you need to).

• Focus on specific comments related to content. However, if there are problems in other areas, please tell them clearly.

Assign a numeric grade based on a 100% maximum scale.

It should be weighted (approximately) 60% Content, 20% Organization & Structure, 10% Style and Grammar, and 10% Cited References.

The grade you give will not affect their grade at all. But will help clarify for everyone how papers are evaluated. Help them get a better grade by being clear so that the final version can be as strong as possible.

Your peer-review grade (10 pts) will be based on the quality of your critique, including the reasonableness of the grade you assign.

Bring to LAB

One marked up copy of the paper for the authors, and 3 copies of your peer review: one each to the two coauthors and myself. (To your colleagues to help them revise their paper and to me to grade your peer review.)

Thanks! Marguerite