Peer Reviews

As part of this course you will be reviewing, commenting on, and marking other students’ assignments. This is a mandatory part of the course and you will be marked on your peer reviews (15% of overall course mark).

Schedule

Peer Reviews will be posted here as they are made available.

Here are the deadlines for peer reviews, with links (to appear after assignments are released). All submissions are due by 11:59pm.

STAT 545

Peer Review Peer Review Due Date
Peer Review 01 September 24, 2018
Peer Review 02 October 01, 2018
Peer Review 03 October 08, 2018
Peer Review 04 October 15, 2018
Peer Review 05 October 24, 2018

STAT 547

Peer Review Peer Review Due Date
Peer Review 06 November 12, 2018
Peer Review 07 November 16, 2018
Peer Review 08 November 23, 2018
Peer Review 09 December 05, 2018
Peer Review 10 December 12, 2018

Logistics

Here is the general flow that will happen for the peer reviews.

  1. When a peer review is released, I will post a GitHub Issue in Discussion-Internal, tagging the teaching team and students.
  2. Click the link in the table above (which can also be found on the corresponding Canvas page), to find a table outlining which two classmates you are to provide a review for, and where to find their homework submissions.
  3. Navigate to your classmates’ homework submissions, look it over, and open a new Issue on their homework repository with your review.
    • You might want to tag the reviewee, too, but not the teaching team.
  4. Upon completion, it would be useful for you to submit a link to the two reviews you left; do so on the UBC Canvas page for the peer review. We will be putting your grades there.

If you do not find your github username on the list:

  1. Complete the peer review steps, but for two randomly chosen classmates.
  2. Indicate that your name was not on the list when you make a submission through canvas.
  3. Email Vincenzo with the situation, so that the class list can be updated.

Evaluation

Each peer review you give is graded on a binary scale: as either 0 (for “needs more”) or 100% (for “good”).

Hallmarks of feedback that “needs more”:

  • Your review is so generic that it’s hard to determine which assignment you’re reviewing.
  • Your review is mean.
  • You can’t find anything to praise/learn and yet you don’t offer any suggestions either.

Resources

How to give a good peer review:

  • Give thoughtful, constructive and considerate comments.
  • Be specific and concise.
  • Use the assignment rubric (above) for ideas about criteria to evaluate and comment on – we’ve given you a template to work with here.
  • Try to learn something new and, if you succeed, point that out.
  • If you can’t find anything to praise or that you found helpful, then at least offer some suggestions in a kind way.

Peer reviewing and critiquing others’ work is a useful skill to develop during your graduate studies. Although these links deal mainly with the peer review of academic papers, most of the key points are applicable to our peer review process.