Peer Review Assignment (Week 7 Discussion)
The peer review assignment addresses the following course outcomes:
Distinguish between repeatable, quantifiable observations and subjective judgements about the natural world.
Differentiate between personally collected data and information from third party sources.
Apply the scientific method to address questions about everyday occurrences in the natural world.
Draw conclusions that are based on available data and evidence obtained in an experiment.
The primary objective of the assignment is to provide another opportunity for you to demonstrate what you’ve learned during your Observation Project. You will demonstrate what you learned by providing helpful information to your classmates.
Have you ever wondered how scientific journals decide which papers to publish and which to reject? The editors are certainly not experts in all the subdisciplines covered by a scientific journal. They rely on peer reviews—reviews by experts on the paper’s topic who are peers of the paper’s authors. Typically, a review won’t give just a yes–no evaluation of a paper; it will include many comments about how the paper could be improved before publication. These comments could range from grammatical errors to serious questions about the methodology or conclusions of the paper.
Reviewers look at questions such as these:
Is the topic interesting?
Is the description of the data collection sufficient for repeatability?
Is the data analysis done in a sensible and well-described way?
Is the presentation of the data compelling? Does it make a good case?
Do the conclusions of the paper logically follow from the data?
In this assignment, you will be the peers of your fellow students and review their papers. You might not be an expert in their topic, but after having come this far on the Observation Project, you should be an expert on how to successfully conduct and construct the stages of the NSCI 120 Observation Project.
Peer Review Steps
Step 1
Complete a draft of your final project report (Stage 3) and post it in the Peer Review Discussion no later than the end of Week 6. You get credit for the Peer Review Discussion just by posting your report by the end of Week 6. Do not reply to classmates in the Peer Review Discussion.
Step 2
During Week 7, choose at least two project reports posted in the Peer Review Discussion to review. You may not review your own project. Fill out the Observation Report Peer Review form (available in the Peer Review Discussion and attached in the Peer Review Assignment folder) for each project report and submit at least two reviews to the Peer Review assignment folder. Do not contact the authors of the reports directly. In your peer review, provide constructive and helpful feedback to the author of the project. What could be improved? Remember, the main goal of the Peer Review Assignment is to demonstrate your grasp of the knowledge and skills attained through the process of developing your full, three-staged NSCI 120 Observation Project. Be sure to include substantive, helpful comments as well.
Step 3
On the first day of Week 8, your instructor will upload peer reviews for your project to the Peer Review Assignment folder (where you submitted your peer reviews). The instructor will make sure that there is no information about the identity of the reviewers for your project. Use the information in the peer reviews proactively and productively to improve and polish your final project report before you submit it for grading. You are not required to agree with the comments or suggestions made by the reviewers. However, use your best judgement about what you could implement to improve your project. Be sure to submit your final project report on or before the last day of class.
Observation Project Peer Review Form [https://umuc365.sharepoint.com/:w:/s/AA-CourseDevelopment-US/EYgSLYrY1OxPuRq_2NzR9XUBYtJcgHlZSRzcjCBM9yqbPg?e=0o8NfB]
