Critically reviewing othersโ work is a crucial part of the scientific process, and STA 199 is no exception. You will all be given read access to another project repo and have until Friday April 1 to provide a detailed critique of the written report and data analysis. This review is intended to help you create a high quality final project, as well as give you experience reading and constructively critiquing the work of others.
In Labs 1, 2, and 6, group number 1 will read group 2, 3 will read 4, 5 will read 6, and 7 will read 8.
In Lab 3, group number 1 will read group 2, 3 will read 4, 5 will read 6.
In Labs 4 and 5, group number 1 will read group 2 and 3 will read 4. Group 5 will read group 6, group 6 will read group 7, and group 7 will read group 5.
Before working on the review, carefully read the guidelines for the final written report.
Think about the below questions as you read over what the other group exchanged with you. You do not have to answer all of these questions and your feedback might depend upon what the other group requests.
Introduction and Data
Is the research question and goal of the report clearly stated?
Does the introduction provide appropriate background context and motivation for a general reader?
Is the source of the data stated with an appropriate citation?
Is it clear when and how the data was collected?
Is data manipulation described clearly (missing data, creation of new variables, etc)?
Are the cases and relevant variables described?
Methodology
Do the visualizations correspond to the stated research question?
Are visualizations effective and do they follow the visualization principles we have discussed in STA 199 (including elements like titles, labels, appropriate for the type of data, etc)?
Is the choice of statistical method justified?
Results
Are the chosen techniques for answering the research question appropriate for the research context and type of data?
Is the research question answered effectively?
Discussion
Is the answer to the research question summarized and supported by statistical arguments?
Are limitations of the analysis clearly outlined?
General
Is the writing clear (including elements like spelling, grammar, etc)? Are you able to follow what is being done?
Is the coding clear? Are you able to follow precisely what is being done?
Are you able to reproduce all aspects of the report, including output, visualizations, etc? Have the reproducibility principles we have discussed in STA 199 been followed?
Is the report well-formatted and readable (including layout but also only reporting relevant output, with no extraneous code, visuals, etc)?
Have they appropriate outlined the next steps with gaps clearly defined?
Any suggestions for them moving forward?
Final Considerations
What is one question you have for the group after reading their analysis?
What is one thing the group has done especially well?
You have until Friday April 1 at 9 AM to provide your comments. There is not a grace period on this assignment, as the other group needs time to read comments in advance of their lab section.
You should share a final draft of your comments to the other group by 9 AM on Tuesday over email. You also should have someone in the group upload your submission to Gradescope. Your submission should be a knitted PDF file from Markdown and should be at least one page and no more than two pages. All group members should contribute to the peer review process. You can work on this in the repo for your own project.
During lab, you should work on your review and ask the other group or TAs questions as they come up.
You should continue working on your project, with an eye on the final deadlines.