Your complete draft is due at the start of class, and the period is peer review. You calibrate on one sample paragraph, then review a classmate's paper against the same rubric that grades yours — every line banded, every comment specific. Review #2 is due before the start of L40, and the reviews you receive drive your revision.
## Before class Submit your **complete draft as a PDF through the course Teams team before class starts.** Review #1 begins five minutes into the period, so a draft that is not in Teams at the start cannot be reviewed. Late deliverables need coordination with the instructor at least 24 hours before the deadline; otherwise they receive a zero. ## Today's clock | Clock | What happens | | --- | --- | | 0–5 min | Drafts in through Teams; reviewers assigned | | 5–15 min | Calibrate: one sample paragraph, marked against the rubric | | 15–45 min | Review #1, on the peer-review form | | 45–50 min | Review #1 submitted; hand-off to review #2 | ## How drafts and reviews move - Your draft goes to the course Teams team as **one PDF**. The instructor assigns **two reviewers** to every paper, so you review two papers and receive two reviews. - Your reviewers read the PDF and nothing else — your code is not exchanged. - **Review #1** is written in class today, on the peer-review form (printed, or an annotated copy of the PDF), and submitted as a PDF through Teams before you leave. - **Review #2** is your second assigned paper, on the same form, submitted as a PDF through Teams **before the start of L40**. - The author revises from both reviews at L40. ## The peer-review form The form carries the Final Project rubric's eight lines. For each line you **circle one band** and write **one specific comment**: - **Exceeds** — complete, correct and clearly argued, beyond what the task requires. - **Meets** — complete and correct. - **Developing** — present, but incomplete, unclear, or with errors. - **Missing** — not in the draft. Two lines are about the review process rather than the paper: **line 6** (Peer reviews given) is a self-check — you band your *own* review before you submit it — and **line 7** (Response to reviewers) is not banded on a draft; there you name the one comment the author's response table most needs to answer. Then three more boxes: - **The citation check:** are all four blocks cited, and do two of the cited lessons support their claims? - **The strongest element** of the paper, and where it is. - **The single change** that would most improve the paper. **How your reviews are graded.** Your two reviews are the rubric's *Peer reviews given* line — **10% of your own Final Project grade**. Each is graded on being **specific** (every comment points at a page, section, figure or equation), **accurate** (right about the models, the numbers and the rubric), and **anchored to the rubric** (each comment sits on its line, and the band you circle matches what you wrote). "Looks good" and "add more detail" earn nothing. ## What a good review looks like A comment the author can act on names **where**, says **what** is wrong or strong, ties it to **one rubric line** with a band, and says **what would fix it**. | | Weak | Good | | --- | --- | --- | | Comment | "The method section is confusing and could use more detail. Nice figures overall!" | "Sec. IV, p. 3: every edge uses the nose-on $\sigma$, yet Fig. 5 calls the route aspect-aware. Route method and cost design — Developing. State the $\sigma$ each edge uses; if nose-on, rebuild the costs by heading on a digraph." | | Specific | No page, section or figure | Section, page and figure named | | Accurate | Nothing to check | Names the model error exactly | | Anchored | No rubric line, no band | One line, one band, one fix | Comment on the paper; do not rewrite it. And check before you "correct" a number: different routes give different numbers, so the question is whether the author's number follows from the author's stated method. ## The citation check The paper must cite at least one course lesson from each block, each for a specific claim; external sources are optional. 1. Circle the **blocks cited** on the form: is there at least one lesson from each of Blocks 1–4? 2. Pick **two** cited lessons that carry a claim the paper depends on. 3. Open each from the URL in its reference: does the lesson support the claim it is cited for, where it is cited? 4. If the paper cites an external source, is it credible and publicly released, with a one-line vetting in Appendix A? A block with no lesson, or a citation that does not support its claim, is a finding: write it down. ## When your reviews come back At L40 you revise from both reviews and write the **response-to-reviewers table** (`ResponseToReviewers.tex`, in the template): **every comment from both reviews gets a row**. If you changed something, say what and where in the final paper; if you did not, say why, with your evidence. Disagreeing with a reviewer is fine — ignoring one is not. The table is worth 5 points and is due with the final paper at the start of L41. See [L40 — Revision Work Day](L40_RevisionWorkDay.md). ## Materials Lesson slides (HTML deck) Final Project - Peer Review Form.pdf — print it for review #1, annotate it for review #2 FinalProject_IEEE_Template.zip — includes ResponseToReviewers.tex Final Project handout (PDF) — the rubric and the rules Next lesson: **L40 — Revision Work Day.** Review #2 is due through Teams before the start of class; bring both reviews of your own paper.