Peer Review Issue Templates

This file contains two review templates: one for the Phase 1 biomass briefing (Week 4) and one for the Phase 2 summative report (Week 10).

---

Phase 1: Biomass Briefing Review (Week 4)

Use this template when filing your review as a GitHub Issue on your assigned classmate’s repository.

---

Copy everything below this line into a new GitHub Issue.

Issue title: Peer review — [your name]

---

Peer Review: [Author’s name]

Reviewer: [your name]

Clarity

• The summary states a clear conclusion up front
• A non-specialist (e.g. a government minister) could follow the argument
• Every figure is referenced in the text

Comments on clarity:

[Write 1–2 sentences. Is the main message clear? Could the reader stop after the summary and still know the answer?]

Evidence

• Numbers have context or comparators (“Is that a big number?”)
• Figures are clearly labelled (axes, captions, units)
• Data sources are cited

Comments on evidence:

[Write 1–2 sentences. Are the figures well-chosen? Do they support the argument? Is anything presented without context?]

Uncertainty

• The briefing acknowledges limitations or assumptions
• More than one scenario or sensitivity is discussed
• The briefing distinguishes between what is measured and what is assumed

Comments on uncertainty:

[Write 1–2 sentences. Does the author acknowledge that the answer depends on assumptions? Are any claims presented as more certain than they should be?]

Trust judgement

I believe this briefing is: Faithful / Suspect

Reason (required — at least 2 sentences):

[Explain why you trust or suspect this briefing. What specific features make it feel honest or misleading? Refer to specific figures, claims, or omissions. “It just feels wrong” is not sufficient — you must point to evidence.]

One thing done well

[Name one specific thing the author did effectively.]

One suggestion for improvement

[Name one specific thing the author could improve, regardless of whether you trust the briefing.]

---

Instructions for reviewers (Phase 1)

1. Read the whole briefing first before filling in this template. First impressions matter — note your gut reaction, then look more carefully.
2. Check the figures carefully. Look at axis ranges, what’s included and excluded, and whether the caption matches what the figure actually shows.
3. Ask “compared to what?” every time you see a number. If the author presents 40 TWh without a comparator, that’s a flag — it could be honest laziness or deliberate omission.
4. Be constructive. Even if you think the briefing is from a traitor, your feedback should be useful. The author will read your review.
5. File your review as a single Issue (not multiple). Use the checkboxes and comment sections above.

---

Phase 2: Summative Report Review (Week 10)

Use this template when reviewing a classmate’s 4-page policy report. You will be assigned someone from a different project group, so you are evaluating unfamiliar work — just like a real peer reviewer.

---

Copy everything below this line into a new GitHub Issue.

Issue title: Peer review — [your name]

---

Peer Review: [Author’s name]

Reviewer: [your name]

Summary and clarity

• The summary states a clear finding and recommendation
• The argument flows logically from question → method → result → conclusion
• A non-specialist policy-maker could follow the report

Comments on clarity:

[Write 1–2 sentences. Is the main message clear from the summary alone? Does the report tell a coherent story?]

Evidence and analysis

• Statistical tests are appropriate for the data and question
• Assumptions are checked and documented
• Effect sizes or confidence intervals are reported (not just p-values)
• Figures are well-chosen, clearly labelled, and referenced in the text
• Numbers have context (“Is that a big number?”)

Comments on evidence:

[Write 1–2 sentences. Are the analytical choices justified? Is anything presented without enough context or support?]

Uncertainty and limitations

• The report acknowledges what the analysis cannot tell us
• Assumptions and potential confounders are discussed
• The conclusion matches the strength of the evidence (no overstatement)

Comments on uncertainty:

[Write 1–2 sentences. Does the author distinguish between what is established and what is uncertain? Are any claims stronger than the evidence warrants?]

Reproducibility

• The methods are described clearly enough to reproduce
• Code is committed to the repo and runs

Comments on reproducibility:

[Write 1–2 sentences. Could you re-run this analysis from the repo? Is anything missing or unclear in the methods?]

One thing done well

[Name one specific thing the author did effectively.]

One thing to improve

[Name one specific thing the author could change to strengthen the report.]

---

Instructions for reviewers (Phase 2)

1. Read the whole report first before filling in this template. Get the overall picture, then evaluate the details.
2. Check the analysis, not just the writing. Look at whether the statistical tests match the data and question. Are assumptions checked? Are effect sizes reported alongside p-values?
3. Apply the course refrains. “Is that a big number?” “Compared to what?” “What assumptions are we making?” “How plausible was this before we tested?” “What is the model not capturing?”
4. Be specific and constructive. Point to particular figures, paragraphs, or claims. “The conclusion seems too strong” is less helpful than “The conclusion says X is the dominant factor, but the R² is only 0.35.”
5. File your review as a single Issue (not multiple). Use the checkboxes and comment sections above.