In this course you will occasionally be asked to write peer reviews. As budding scientists, peer reviews will be increasingly more important throughout your careers. Below is an outline of some things to consider when writing peer reviews, although you are not limited to this list and need not treat it like a checklist. Your review should be less than a page.

• Be constructive. Emphasize positive aspects and suggest how to improve the not-so-positive ones.

• Remark on clarity. Pretend you and your reviewee are collaborators. Address their logical flow, how easy it is to read their figures, whether they answered the questions clearly and explained their solutions.

• Provide R tips. You’re encouraged to glance at the reviewee’s code, as they could be using a technique you have not thought about. If you know a more efficient way to obtain the same result (e.g. use another library, function, of loop), share it in your review.

• Avoid biases. Keep in mind that some of your remarks will be subjective, such as figure or table aesthetics. This is not to say you shouldn’t share these thoughts, but you should weigh their importance accordingly.

• Be specific. For your voice to be properly heard, be very detailed about which part of the report you’re referencing. If, for example, you are commenting on code or figures, provide the line or figure numbers.

• Don’t overdo it. It can sometimes be easy to provide too much feedback to the point where the report starts becoming more yours and less the reviewees. It is thus less important to comment on topics such as sentence structure, grammar, etc.