Guidelines for Peer Review of Final Report Drafts

Similar to the presentation peer reviews earlier in the term, each team will prepare (collectively) one bulleted critique of their assigned draft project paper. Critiques should be 2-3 pages in length (0.75 inch margins, 12 pt times font, single-spaced), and be subdivided into the following subsections:

Motivation/Significance

• For example: was the motivation for the proposed approach well presented, were existing approaches clearly described and compared to the proposed solution? Will the proposed strategy provide a significant advance if it is successful?

Design Description

• For example: was the concept clearly described? Were the necessary components/technologies clearly spelled out?

Approach

• For example: were the in vitro, in vivo, and if applicable, clinical studies needed to pilot and test the ideas clearly spelled out? Are there flaws in the experimental designs proposed? Are alternative solutions for potential problems discussed?

Each subsection should provide bullet responses highlighting both strengths and weaknesses. A great critique will not only point out flaws, but also suggest optional approaches at might correct the problem. The objective of a successful critique is to provide guidance to the reviewed team on how to make their project proposal as strong as possible.