Peer review guide

[![License: CC BY 4.0](https://img.shields.io/badge/License-CC_BY_4.0-lightgrey.svg)](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) **Date of release:** 20-10-2023 ::: info **Goals of the peer review** - Get and give feedback on your hardware design documentation based on project status - Get and give feedback on the openness of your project - Get and give feedback on your project process **Outcomes:** - Written feedback ::: ## How does the peer review work ### Peer review pairs | Person 1 | Person 2 | | -------- | -------- | |Shantnav|Jasper| |Gül|Adrian| |Vladimir|Vincent| |Fabio|Alexander| |Dekontee|Aniket| |David|Amit| :::success Feedback should be given based on the status of the project (early phase without a prototype, a prototype that partially works, or a fully tested product that needs to be marketed or open sourced...) ::: :::warning :warning: For this peer review round ignore the Licensing and versioning items, as we will cover them in coming lessons. A second peer review will be scheduled on week 9 (3-7 October) ::: - Get in contact with your peer reviewer/review to prepare (we sent you an email with contact details) - Provide the name of your project to your buddy - Provide relevant links and documents for the reviewer to give you feedback. - You are assigned a buddy that will give you feedback and you will give back feedback. - Be critical and constructive. Its neither good to be cheerleading all the time, nor be negative all the time, its good to have a balance and seek feedback that helps - Copy the [feedback template](https://hackmd.io/75MuGvK3TRCUj6i5enK96A) to write down your observations and recommendations on the project you were assigned to review. ## Activities for reviewers  **Provide feedback in the form of recommendations, observations, suggestions, or questions** - For each feedback session: - Write a minimum of 5 points where you think there is room for improvement - Write a minimum of 3 aspects you like about the project ### Give feedback on your open hardware project documentation Week 2 **Look for the following:** - Is the project description clear from a value proposition point of view? - For example is it clear what is the problem? Who has the problem? And how this project might tackle such issues? - Are there a list of features and specifications of what the hardware must, have, should have, could have? - For example parameters that define if the solution is acceptable or not (acceptance criteria) ### Give feedback on the project process Week 3 The main goal is to see if you have set up a systematic plan to realize your project vision and if it's realistic in terms of time and scope. Instructions: - Is there a list of priorities, as features or hypothesis to work on - Is there a focus on something specific short term ## Peer Review template Find the template **[here](https://hackmd.io/75MuGvK3TRCUj6i5enK96A)** # Examples of peer review from last year (This peer review was done at the end of the program (2022), therefore it has a different scope than the one we are having on 2023) :::success Peer review by Miguel F. Marrero Tarrau [FAIR-Battery] [https://github.com/SanliFaez/FAIR-Battery#the-fair-battery-project] https://hackmd.io/@M3VcsL8RSjmCZdMQNzeMwA/SkzMoIZZo ::: :::success Peer review by Tom Hommes [ Data-acquisition-and-transmission-module] [https://github.com/mmtarrau/Data-acquisition-and-transmission-module-] https://www.overleaf.com/read/hkwqgdxxtyhf ::: ::: success Peer review by Nemo Andrea Reviewing the _Low cost automated microscope_ by Jose Ocampo (a.k.a. jossoca) [hackmd link to peer review document](https://hackmd.io/@_9Iuj8oQSTGvm7TxiNPygw/B11Uh6ZZo) ::: ::: success Peer review by Pepe Reviewing the _SpotiStation_ by Nemo. https://hackmd.io/@nyiDX_5FSJmjWwMqic4ZQQ/HJ7xlhIZj :::  --- <ul class="pager">  <li><a href="/hZH1FWsNRSO0FJ1i-9tE4g">Previous Week</a></li>  <li><a href="/HswGjAZ-Re-aM12kuHBqwg">Next Week</a></li>  </ul>