Thank you to those of you who have copied me on the email to their peer reviewer. If you have not copied me, would you mind forwarding me your time-stamped email with your attached protocol? Dr. Malekinejad and I will be grading your protocols, so it is important that we have a copy of it.
One of the students in our class kindly pointed out that the Assignment 2 word document did not include information about meeting with your peer reviewer. For reference, here were the instructions for Assignment 2 on the main CLE page:
"Each student will be paired with another student in the course. Each student pair is required to meet at least once during the course, read each other’s protocol, and discuss the importance/justification for a systematic review on their respective topics. When submitting your brief protocol (as part of assignment #1), you should also send a copy of that to your peer-reviewer (and cc Mazie Tsang mazie.tsang@ucsf.edu) on the same day that you are submitting your Assignment 1. For Assignment 2, you will then provide a written feedback on your peer’s protocol, highlighting at least three methodological areas that can be improved and two areas of strength. Final Assignment 2 should include a narrative section comprising 1-2 short paragraphs about critical comments (~ 200 words) + using marginal comments to provide comment on specific section of the protocol."
Dr. Malekinejad would like to clarify that the expectation is that peers will meet at least once to share feedback for Assignment 2. You can tell us the date and time of the meeting when you submit your summary for Assignment 2. Please find the updated Assignment 2 instructions below (see numbers 5 and 6). I have also attached the updated Assignment 2 instructions.
How this will work:
- You will be assigned a peer-reviewer by instructors. You can find your peer’s name from the list posted on CLE.
- Peer students should exchange their protocols in Word format – a clean version that you have already submitted for assignment #1 should be submitted to your peer and cc the course assistant.
- You should write an overall summary of your peer’s systematic review protocol (200-250 words), highlighting both areas with methodological strength as well as areas that can be further improved / expanded (3 points). In the summary, you should provide two specific examples of areas identified as strengths or weaknesses and the reasoning behind it (2 points total, each 1 point)
- Additionally, using marginal comment boxes, indicate specific areas of the protocol that would benefit from further work (not the same as you included in the summary), and provide:
- at least 3 “contextually applicable”* and specific recommendations for how your peer student can improve the methodology of his/her protocol and
- at least 2 recommendations for how to improve the reporting of the protocol.
- We ask that peers meet and provide feedback to help improve each other’s protocol.
- When returning Assignment 2, please indicate the date and time of the meeting.
Note: Justify each of your recommendations (5 points total, each 1 point). 1 bonus point if you provide 2 more.
Lastly, some students have dropped the course, so we have uploaded an updated assignment of peer reviewers. The changes are highlighted in yellow, and the students have already been updated via email.
Thank you so much!
Mazie