Logo

Course website for CSSS508: Introduction to R for Social Scientists

University of Washington

Charles Lanfear
Email
Twitter
GitHub

Peer Review

Overview

You are required to grade and provide feedback on both the .html output and .Rmd syntax files for peer homeworks. After each homework, students will be randomly assigned a homework from a peer and given until the following class meeting to provide peer review. The ability to read and evaluate the work of others is important and useful. A good programmer realizes that most coding problems have been solved by others in the past; the trick is figuring out how to read existing code and apply it to new problems. You will begin to develop this skill by reading others’ code, evaluating their approach to problems, providing suggestions, and pointing out when you learned something new.

Evaluation of Peer Review

For each homework assignment, you will receive either 0 or 1 point for your peer review. 25% of your overall course grade comes from evaluation of peer review. Additionally, failure to complete peer reviews may result in points removed from homeworks.

Good peer reviews:

Poor peer reviews:

Grading Rubric

Homeworks will be evaluated by peers on a 0 to 3 scale. The overall scores are shown below with example situations in bullets below each.

0: Didn’t turn anything in

1: Turned in but low effort, ignoring many directions

2: Decent effort, followed directions with some minor issues

3: Nailed it

Some Review Suggestions

These guidelines for reviewing scientific computing code from Andrea Zonca are concise and should be used to direct your feedback.

Coding style should not be the main focus of the review, the most important feedback for the author are high-level comments on software organization. The reviewer should focus on what makes the software more usable and more maintenable.

A few examples:

  • can some parts of the code be simplified?
  • is there any functionality that could be replaced by an existing library?
  • is it clear what each part of the software is doing?
  • is there a more straightforward way of splitting the code into files?
  • is documentation enough?
  • are there some function arguments or function names that could be easily misinterpreted by a user?

The purpose is to improve the code, but also to help the code author to improve her coding skills.

When to Contact the Instructor

A number of situations may warrant contacting the instructor:

  1. If you believe you have received an unfair peer review, you can resubmit your homework for evaluation by the instructor. The assignment will be regraded, which may result in a higher, same, or lower grade.
  2. If you wish for more feedback on a particular part of the homework, you can ask the instructor for additional explanation without resubmitting during lab or over email.
  3. If you receive no feedback, the instructor will provide gentle peer review on request.

Acknowledgements: These peer review guidelines are adapted from Jenny Bryan’s UBC STAT545 course.