Peer Review Exchange
A written, blind review of a classmate's proposal --- the one piece of graded work in this course where you don't get to know who you're grading, or who's grading you.
Due: 19 April 2027 · Weight: 20%
The brief#
Write a blind review of a classmate’s one-page proposal that you would be willing to sign, and then don’t.
Proposals are submitted anonymously and redistributed anonymously; you won’t know whose work you’re reviewing, and you won’t know who reviewed yours until marks are returned. The point isn’t the disguise — it’s whether removing the social cost of a specific claim changes what you’re willing to write, and whether you can tell the difference between using that freedom honestly and using it as cover.
What you submit#
A written review of the proposal you’re assigned, following the same specific-and-falsifiable standard as every other week. No names, no identifying references to who you think the author is, even if you’re confident.
The spec
The brief poses the problem and leaves room for a response. The spec is the fixed part: what a marker checks. Some lines can be checked mechanically; the rest call for judgement.
- submitted by the deadline, in the format named below
- the review is specific and falsifiable on the proposal, not a verdict with no claim under it
- you can state, if asked, that you would sign this exact review with your name on it
How it is marked
Marked on whether the review would survive being unmasked --- whether it's the same review you'd have written knowing your name would be attached. A review that's specific and falsifiable but noticeably softer than the anonymous drafts seen in week 7's crit reads as using anonymity as licence, not as courage, and marks accordingly.