Laboratory 10
Peer Review of
Research Proposals
Learning Objectives:
- Apply knowledge of research design and statistics to
critically
evaluate and suggest improvements for research projects proposed by
three
other students in lab.
- Practice oral communication in panel evaluation format.
- Increase knowledge for own proposal by listening and
understanding
peer review.
- Improve research project by applying improvements suggested
during
review.
- Appreciate the importance of writing clearly by listening
mutely
to what the reviewers thought you meant, but that you didn't express
clearly.
Materials Needed
- Three peers' proposals, place on the R: drive by them on the
proposal due date.
- Notes that you have taken regarding each proposal
that
will allow you to summarize the proposal (maximum of 5 minutes) and add
to
the review of methods and ethics.
Peer Review Guidelines
1. Carefully read each proposal you are assigned. Make comments
and corrections on the proposal
2. Write your own comments to use in a panel discussion of the
proposal. Each panel will consist of 3 to 4 individuals. The author of
the proposal may not speak. In addition the instructor will not speak
during the review. After the review is complete (20 to 30 minutes) the
panel may address questions to the author of the proposal and/or the
instructor. Panel will:
- Summarize the proposed hypothesis and methods.
- Evaluate the research design (methods of study)
identifying
weaknesses and suggesting improvements.
- Evaluate the ethical principles of the proposed
study,
identifying weaknesses and suggesting improvements.
3. The panel should address the above issues. Remarks about grammar,
spelling,
and other "knit picking" should be done on the proposal in writing, but
not
in the panel discussion. The purpose of peer review is to provide the
author
of the proposal with feedback that will produce the best possible
research.
The worst peer review is one that is superficial because the problems
that
are glossed over will surface by the end of the term. Reviewers and
researcher
are responsible to identify obvious problems while they can be
corrected.
4. Peer reviewers' will be graded in terms of effort. If you
participate responsibly in the review you receive full credit. If you
miss lab you let
down your co-reviewers and the author of the proposals you are assigned
to
review. There is no way to make up this lab.
