Peer review teaching exercise
Introduction (20 minutes)
**Introduction to peer review (link to slides here)
Discuss- what is the purpose of peer review?
Reviewing best practice + code of conduct (link to sample oath here)
Exercise (1 hr 30 mins)
The entire exercise is constructed around one or more preprint-paper pairs1 of your choice, but this can be run in multiple ways depending on the materials and time available. What works best is a paper that has changed significantly between preprint and final published version. Access to transparent reviews is a bonus!
Option 1: single session with limited preparation time (not ideal for inexperienced students)
Prerequisites
Ideally needs to be a short preprint/paper; instructor needs to have a list of the key changes between preprint and paper
Prep
Give all the students in the class the preprint; get each group to read the abstract, skim the paper but focus on one figure; identify one recommended control or follow-up experiment that would strengthen a statement in the abstract.
Play-by-play
Get each group to present their suggestion in turn;
The instructor compares these suggestions with the actual changes in the published version, and contrasting with the actual peer review reports if available.
Discuss or reflect post-class. Evidence of good, constructive peer review? Is the paper better as a result? What would you have done differently? Was it difficult to review the paper in such a short time?
Option 2: single class with preparation or staggered over multiple sessions
Prerequisites
Transparent reviews can serve as an instructive basis for comparison if available!
Prep
Give half the students the preprint only and ask them to review it without looking at the final published version (group 1); give the other half the published paper and review it without looking at the preprint (group 2).
Play-by-play
Give group 1 time to collate and summarise their review;
Get them to present it to the class;
Ask group 2 to present their findings; focus on how well the students’ concerns were addressed, if they were addressed; if not, were the actual reviews more or less constructive?
Discuss or reflect post-class. Evidence of good, constructive peer review? Is the paper better as a result? What would you have done differently? Was it difficult to review the paper? If yes, identify the factors that made it challenging for you? Collect comments from the discussion to develop a summary of the elements of a thorough, constructive review.
**References **