Grading scheme: The peer review is 30% of your class grade. There are 3 peer reviews, each worth 10% of your grade. If you do poorly on peer review #1, but correct your mistakes in peer review #2, you can gain back all of the points you lost. My hope is that everyone gets 100% on their peer reviews, by the end of peer review #3.

Philosophy: As a reviewer, the quality of the project you’re reviewing is your responsibility. You need to provide all of the necessary feedback to bring the project to the level of quality that your team deems acceptable. In your requests to the Design Team, you need to be cognizant of the time-constraints of the course.

Elements of the review:

1. Big picture: 2pt
   1. Are the project goals well defined? These may be in the form of functional requirements or in other forms.
   2. Do you understand the ultimate deliverable of the project, and the level of detail that the Design Team plans to attain by the end of the project? What would the team define as a successfully completed project? Do you agree with their definition?
2. Record-keeping: 1pt
   1. Do all the documents that you reviewed follow the Document Control guidelines?
   2. Were all of their assumptions, claims, and decisions well-documented? What is missing from the documentation you reviewed?
3. Technical review – for each of the documents submitted for review some or all of the questions below may be relevant: 6pt
   1. Is the scope of the document clear? Is the problem well-posed?
   2. Is the employed method appropriate?
   3. Is the method correctly applied? Are there any errors in the calculations or in the application of the method?
   4. Is the documentation complete? Are you able to trace all the steps, replicate all the calculations, follow all of the decisions, trace all of the inputs to their respective sources?
   5. Inputs: are the appropriate sources cited? Is the cited source appropriate? Is it a reliable source for the respective information? Is the original source being cited (i.e. do not cite a source that cites a sources that cites a source. cite the original source.)? Are uncertainties and errors quantified where relevant?
   6. Is it relevant for the Review Team to perform independent calculations? Were you able to perform these calculations? Did your results agree with the results of the Design Team?
   7. Is it clear what the results are? Do you believe that the results are correct?
4. Overall feedback: 1pt
   1. What are the strengths of the project?
   2. What are the weak points of the project?
   3. What is your vision (as the Review Team) of a successfully completed project? Define your expectations. What would you define as the % completion level of the project at this point?
   4. You can provide any other advice that you wish to.

Review Grading Rubric (10 points total):

9-10: All elements of the review are fully addressed. All of the mistakes and gaps in the project are correctly identified. The recommendations are relevant. The expectations are appropriate to the time-constraints and of sufficient quality.

7-8: Most elements of the review are addressed. Most mistakes and gaps are identified, but some are missed. Most of the recommendations made are relevant, and the expectations are good but have some room for improvement.

5-6: Important elements of the review are incomplete or absent. Major mistakes and gaps are not identified. There are significant errors in the analysis of the review team, and the recommendations made. The expectations of the review team need significant improvement.

3-4: Some elements of the review are present. Some of the Design Team’s gaps or mistakes are identified. A large part of the analysis of the review team is absent or flawed. The review recommendations are somewhat relevant to the success of the project. The expectations are poorly undefined or superficial, or only in a small part appropriate to the project.

1-2: Hardly any of the elements of the review are present. Very few of the Design Team’s gaps or mistakes are identified. Most of the analysis of the review team is absent or flawed. The review recommendations are not relevant to the success of the project. The expectations are undefined or nor appropriate to the project.