PeerReviewSp13

Lookup Table is at bottom of this page:
02/27/13 - New 'Reviewed Reports' are ready to be downloaded now. See Blackboard for yours.

-- grab the file with the number that is associated with your name (see Table at the bottom of this page) the files have not been 'prepped' yet - Come back later when the are ready. You can't really do anything until then!
 * NOTE ** : the files are ready to go - you can go to BlackBoard to download them: CourseDocuments/PeerReviewReports/1_ToBeReviewedReports

Handout
(Handout is also posted on BlackBoard)

Links
BB LinkDropITToMe Link

Your review will include written comments written directly on the paper in green / blue font (or various colors of highlighter). You can type directly in the paper – or put your comments after each question at the end of the paper in the **Anonymous Reviewer Comments** in green / blue font.

COPY & PASTE THESE COMMENTS TO THE END OF YOUR PEER REVIEW DOCUMENT and then address each of them

 * Anonymous Reviewer Comments **
 * 1) 1. (1 pt.) //Format//: Is this report formatted correctly? Does it include all required sections: title page, introduction, materials and methods, results & discussion, Conclusion w/ future directions, references? If not, what is missing? Are the paragraphs justified to full width? Are there too many/few words? (not including references or captions)
 * 2) 2. (1 pt.) //Intro//: In the introduction, does the author explain the main concepts relevant to the lab? __Name at least two concepts__ and state whether the author explained them sufficiently or not.
 * 3) 3. (1 pt.) //Objective:// Is there an objective at the __end__ of the Intro? Usually the objective is not at the beginning – but rather background material is given first before the purpose of the lab is addressed. How could it be improved? Is the hypothesis too simplistic? Is it testable using this lab?
 * 4) 4. (1 pt.) //Order:// poor ordering of ideas. Could the flow be better to facilitate understanding?
 * 5) 5. (1 pt.) //Writing//: Is the writing clear, concise, and grammatically correct? Point out frequent misspellings, unclear sentences. As you read through the introduction, highlight all misspelled words, grammatical mistakes, incomplete sentences, subject-verb disagreement, or other grammatical problems. __Make note of at least 3 errors here__.
 * 6) 6. (1 pt.) //Methods//: By reading the materials and methods section, do you think you can reproduce one of the experiments? In other words, did the author list final concentrations, conditions, sources of materials...etc.? Mention at least one way in which this section could be improved.
 * 7) 7. (1 pt.) //Tense//: How many times does the author use first person pronouns such as “I” or “we” in describing the experimental procedures? (There should be none!)
 * 8) 8. (1 pt.) //Data//: Are all graphs/tables/figures labeled correctly? Should any be omitted? Should any be added? Numbered in the order of their appearance in the text? Are the legends (if necessary) and axes complete so that the meaning of the figure is clear? Are axes scaled to be clear – i.e. too many significant figures? There shouldn’t be a title on figures. Is there a figure caption that explains the graph? Captions should not start with ‘This image shows…..’ or ‘This is an image of …..’. Captions should not include any analysis – only description of experiment and data. Do they show (write out) the key equations for the lab? Not regular calculations though.
 * 9) 9. (1 pt.) //Discussion//: In the discussion section, does the author use complete, coherent, scientifically correct sentences to analyze the results obtained? Provide an example by highlighting a sentence in the text. Does the author just re-state the methods or do they actually provide insightful analysis? Is an error analysis included of factors that would lead to inaccuracies or reduced confidence in the data?
 * 10) 10. (1 pt.) //References:// Do they have ‘in-text’ citations at the end of sentences? Are the in-text citations correctly formatted? Are there at least 3 references? Does the first reference cited in the text correspond to the 1st reference in the Bibliography? The bibliography should not necessarily be alphabetical but rather by first usage. Is the bibliography correctly formatted? Are all of the papers in the bibliography cited in the text? Do they need more references based upon the information present?
 * 11) 11. (1 pt.) //Conclusions & Future Directions:// Does the author concisely re-capitulate what was done in the lab while emphasizing the most important result? Do you think the information in the “Future Directions” is specific enough to show their understanding of the work and its context within the research as a whole?
 * 12) 12. (1 pt.) List two things the author does well:
 * 13) 13. (1 pt.) List two things that the author needs to improve:


 * **Name** || **Document to be Graded** ||
 * ARIEL || 19 ||
 * ALICE || 47 ||
 * ANTONIO || 3 ||
 * AARON || 67 ||
 * ASHLEE || 5 ||
 * ALYSSA || 51 ||
 * ALAKH || 41 ||
 * ADITI || 12 ||
 * ANITA || 52 ||
 * BRENDAN || 49 ||
 * BRANDY || 62 ||
 * CAROLINE || 59 ||
 * D'ONDRIA || 37 ||
 * DANIEL || 31 ||
 * EMILY || 63 ||
 * FENG || 14 ||
 * GRAYSON BRANT || 23 ||
 * GRANT DAVID || 50 ||
 * GRACE || 53 ||
 * GAUTAM || 56 ||
 * HYUN-YOUNG || 38 ||
 * IMRAN || 4 ||
 * JACQUELINE I. || 42 ||
 * JENSEN || 34 ||
 * JULIA || 29 ||
 * DE LA O || 43 ||
 * JAMES N. || 48 ||
 * JESSICA O. || 21 ||
 * JIAQI || 2 ||
 * KARUNA || 8 ||
 * KHADY || 16 ||
 * K . RENEE || 18 ||
 * KEVIN || 40 ||
 * KATHERINE H. || 35 ||
 * KEREN || 46 ||
 * KAVYA || 57 ||
 * KARINNA || 1 ||
 * KELSEY L. || 39 ||
 * KEELY || 11 ||
 * MIGUEL ANGEL || 33 ||
 * MARIANNA || 61 ||
 * MANUEL ADALBERTO || 66 ||
 * Madeline || 24 ||
 * MOHAMMAD QASIM || 45 ||
 * MIN || 10 ||
 * MUHAMMAD SALMAN || 25 ||
 * MELISSA || 6 ||
 * NICOLET || 58 ||
 * NANCY N. || 60 ||
 * NICOLE || 32 ||
 * PRIYA || 44 ||
 * RAMIRO || 30 ||
 * SHIVANI || 22 ||
 * STELLA || 36 ||
 * S. Dax || 64 ||
 * SHANNON || 27 ||
 * SELENA || 7 ||
 * SEO (Kelly) || 28 ||
 * SHAWN || 65 ||
 * SO-YOUN || 55 ||
 * SPENCER || 17 ||
 * SERENA || 9 ||
 * HUNTER K. || 54 ||
 * TRACY X. || 20 ||
 * VICTORIA (Vicky) || 13 ||
 * WILLIAM I. || 26 ||
 * WILLIAM E. || 15 ||

Peer Review Assignment prep by VDSstaff (i.e. Larry):
create a spreadsheet in the VDSstaff Google Docs account with all of the students UTEIDs and a Unique number for their paper along with the Unique number of another random students paper. This spreadsheet will be the Master Key--NOTE: use the list from the VDSstaff Google Docs account (LabNotebookCommentingforMentorsSp13) - make a copy of the spreadsheet first and re-name it Make copies of all of the submitted assignmentsStrip out the names and any identifying features from the headerChange the 'author' field to be blank (not necessary because when you save as a new name it will have you as the author)-- Add in the "** Anonymous Reviewer Comments **' sub-section to the END of each paperre-name the files according to a Unique number from your spreadsheet (e.g. 001BeersLawLabReport.docx)

then post the re-named files to a Black board folder for them to retrieve the one that they are supposed to peer-review-- NOTE: can do a zip file upload of a whole folder to BlackBoard.Post to this page on Wikispaces with a table of Student First name and Last initial - along with the Unique number of the paper they are supposed to get from blackboard.-- NOTE: you should probably create a new table that is in order by UTEID alphabetically. You could use the one on the Lab Safety page - but it is not in order.