Tips on critiquing your peers

This project is essentially about persuading a reviewer that you have found an interesting problem to solve and have a way to solve it. If this were a grant proposal, you would be asking someone to give you money to investigate the problem. The proposal needs to be clear, concise, and accurate. The methods proposed need to be creative, feasible, and worthwhile. Your objective as a reviewer is to provide constructive comments that will improve the proposal. You are not helping a colleague by saying everything looks great, when you know there are problems. As a reviewer what should you look for?Below are some suggestions.

Introduction

  1. The page limit for this proposalis15one and 1/2 spaced pages. Approximately 11 pages of the proposal can be about background material (introduction and literature review). This will eventually be followed by a methodology section of up to 4 pages. Keep this in mind as you review the proposals. If a researcher has not written enough to make their case clear, suggest that they write more about specific topics. However, if it is clear and short don't worry about it being less than the page limit. If a researcher has exceeded the limit, then suggest what might be dispensable or moved to another section.
  2. Are the transitions from one paragraph or sentence to the next smooth? Can you follow what they are saying easily? Indicate where the transitions may not be smooth.
  3. Check on the writing style. Is it easy to read or are there a lot of run-on sentences and/or passive voices? Is all jargon understandable?
  4. Does the question the researcher proposes to explore look interesting and novel? If you have doubts, express them, even if this isn’t an area you know much about. It is up to the researcher to convince others that the idea is a good one to pursue.
  5. Does the proposal do a good job of putting the question in a context? If not, what needs to be added?

The Introduction

Description of Topic Area: A good title will clue the reader into the topic but it can not tell the whole story. The introduction provides a brief overview that tells a fairly well informed, but perhaps non-specialist reader what the proposal is about. It might be as short as a single page. It should be very clearly written. Your goal is to convince the reader that you have something interesting to say.

What is your proposal about? Briefly describe the general topic and quickly come to the question that your research will address.

Question: You should be able to phrase a single question that drives the proposal. There may be a small group of “lesser” questions you want to answer in your work that follow from your central question.

What question is your research going to try to answer? What will we learn from your work?

Significance: This subsection should explain how / why the proposed work is important to extending our understanding of the area being investigated. It should convince me that this is a good Independent Study thesis topic or something I should fund.

Why is this work important? What are the implications of doing it? How does it link to other knowledge?
Literature Review(includes same concerns as above plus the following)

  1. Is all the information provided on a topic accurate? Notify them if it isn't. Is all the information provided relevant? Indicate what can be removed and why. Have the authors covered all the relevant topics in a logical manner? Are there topics they can remove? What should they elaborate on? Do you have a good sense about where they are going? Was it easy to follow the text?
  2. Do you feel that the author has a reasonable command of the relevant literature? Have s/he accurately and effectively summarized the literature as you understand it? Do not be afraid to question the facts of a proposal at this stage. Merely indicate your concern and it is up to them to provide proof.
  3. Is the text referenced well? Check that references are accurate and appropriate. You may want to randomly check on a reference or two to find out if they are accurate and if they have summarized them properly.

Methodology (includes same concerns as above plus the following)

  1. Are the method presented in a logical manner? Is it clear what information they hope to gain from the experiments?
  1. Are the protocols clearly referenced or described in sufficient detail that you have a basic idea how they will perform their experiments?
  1. Do the authors clearly state what is to be gained from these experiments and what can be done to follow up on their results? How will this advance our basic knowledge of life processes? Are you convinced that these experiments are worthwhile? If not, why not?

In general, be as thorough and as precise in your criticisms as you can. You are trying to help them write the strongest proposal they can. This is not a competition. I will give everyone A's if warranted.

References

Check that they references are done correctly.