# Peer review guide

Giving usable feedback is a **course learning goal**, and it's graded (peer review is 10% of the grade).

## The three reviews

| Review | Due | You review | Length |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peer Review 1 | Sun, Oct 18 | One classmate's **proposal** | 150–200 words |
| Peer Review 2 | Sun, Nov 22 | One classmate's **implementation milestone** | 150–200 words |
| Peer Review 3 | In session, Nov 30 / Dec 2 | A **panel peer's** presentation | 150–200 words |

If you take the course for 4 units you do any 2 of the 3 reviews; for 3 units, any 1. **You choose which**, and declare them in your proposal (Sun, Oct 11). Once declared, the reviews you chose are required. Peer-review deadlines are firm, and late reviews are not accepted.

**The TAs assign reviewers.** For Peer Review 3, you review a peer on your own panel. If you have a partner, you each write your own reviews. All three reviews use the same rubric, in `docs/polisci158-rubrics.md`.

## What usable feedback looks like

150–200 words is short. Spend it on what matters most:

1. **Restate the project in one sentence.** "As I understand it, you're asking whether … and plan to …" If you can't, that's feedback in itself: the project isn't clear yet.
2. **One real strength.** Be specific about what works and why.
3. **The most important concern.** Pick the *one* issue that most threatens the project, not five small ones. Useful places to look:
   - Proposal: is the question specific? Is the motivation concrete? Is the plan feasible?
   - Milestone: does it report real progress? Do the checks address the real threats? Are the claims matched to the evidence?
   - Presentation: was the takeaway clear? Was it earned by the evidence? What question went unanswered?
4. **One concrete suggestion.** Something the author can actually do before the next deadline.

## Template

```
In one sentence, this project ...
The strongest part is ... because ...
The most important issue is ... because ...
One thing to try before the next deadline: ...
```

## Ground rules

- **Critique the work, not the person.** Be direct and kind.
- **Name one priority, not a list.** Otherwise the author won't know what to fix first.
- **"I'd do it differently" isn't a flaw.** Point to problems of logic, evidence, or feasibility, not taste.
- **Write it yourself.** The point is your genuine engagement with a classmate's work. Like all written work in the course, your review must be in your own words. We also suggest writing it without AI help, and not pasting a classmate's unpublished work into an AI tool (suggested practices; see `docs/polisci158-ai-use-and-disclosure.md`).

---
*Sources: POLISCI 158 syllabus (Student Expectations: Peer Review; Grading; Project Components and Deadlines). Ground rules draw on the syllabus's "Creating a respectful environment".*