people <- c( "Sam Adhikari", "Purvasha Chakravarti", "Maria Cuellar", "Beau Dabbs", "Shannon Gallagher", "Amanda Luby", "Brendan McVeigh", "Josue Orellana", "Taylor Pospisil", "Jining Qin", "Lee Richardson", "Francesca Matano", "Peter Elliot" ) (assignments <- rbind( cbind(1:11,sample(1:11),sample(1:11)), cbind(12:13,sample(1:11,2),sample(1:11,2)))) bozo <- assignments bozo [,1] [,2] [,3] [1,] 1 8 2 [2,] 2 10 9 [3,] 3 11 1 [4,] 4 1 11 [5,] 5 9 3 [6,] 6 5 8 [7,] 7 4 5 [8,] 8 3 6 [9,] 9 7 10 [10,] 10 6 7 [11,] 11 2 4 [12,] 12 3 9 [13,] 13 1 10 matrix(people[bozo],ncol=3) bozoette <- matrix(NA,ncol=4,nrow=13) for (i in 1:11) { bozoette[i,1] <- i bozoette[i,2] <- grep(i,bozo[,2])[1] bozoette[i,3] <- grep(i,bozo[,3])[1] } bozoette[12,1] <- 12 bozoette[3,4] <- 12 bozoette[9,4] <- 12 bozoette[13,1] <- 13 bozoette[1,4] <- 13 bozoette[10,4] <- 13 > matrix(people[bozoette],ncol=4) [,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [1,] "Sam Adhikari" "Purvasha Chakravarti" "Maria Cuellar" "Peter Elliot" [2,] "Purvasha Chakravarti" "Lee Richardson" "Sam Adhikari" NA [3,] "Maria Cuellar" "Josue Orellana" "Shannon Gallagher" "Francesca Matano" [4,] "Beau Dabbs" "Brendan McVeigh" "Lee Richardson" NA [5,] "Shannon Gallagher" "Amanda Luby" "Brendan McVeigh" NA [6,] "Amanda Luby" "Jining Qin" "Josue Orellana" NA [7,] "Brendan McVeigh" "Taylor Pospisil" "Jining Qin" NA [8,] "Josue Orellana" "Sam Adhikari" "Amanda Luby" NA [9,] "Taylor Pospisil" "Shannon Gallagher" "Purvasha Chakravarti" "Francesca Matano" [10,] "Jining Qin" "Purvasha Chakravarti" "Taylor Pospisil" "Peter Elliot" [11,] "Lee Richardson" "Maria Cuellar" "Beau Dabbs" NA [12,] "Francesca Matano" NA NA NA [13,] "Peter Elliot" NA NA NA ----- What to read: In this person's paper: Please review this: -------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Sam Adhikari Sections 1 and 2. Purvasha Chakravarti Section 2. Use Section 1 for bkgd as needed Maria Cuellar Section 4. Use Sect's 2 and 3 for bkgd as needed. Beau Dabbs Section 2. Shannon Gallagher Section 2. Use earlier material as bkgd as needed. Amanda Luby Sections 1,2,3. Brendan McVeigh Section 3. Use Sect's 1 and 2 as bkgd as needed. Josue Orellana Pages 1,2,3. Read more if you like. Taylor Pospisil Section 4. Use earlier material as needed for bkgd. Jining Qin Section 3. Use earlier material as needed for bkgd. Lee Richardson Section 4. Use earlier material as needed for bkgd. Francesca Matano Peter Elliot ---- Instructions for peer review. I have assigned each of you to read 2 authors (and each of you will get at least two reviews on the draft paper you submitted). The sections of each author's paper that you should read are listed below (in most cases I tried to note this on the first page of the paper draft also): Author Section(s) to read -------------------- ------------------ Sam Adhikari Sections 1 and 2. Purvasha Chakravarti Section 2. Use Section 1 for bkgd as needed. Maria Cuellar Section 4. Use Sect's 2 and 3 for bkgd as needed. Beau Dabbs Section 2. Shannon Gallagher Section 2. Use earlier material as bkgd as needed. Amanda Luby Sections 1,2,3. Brendan McVeigh Section 3. Use Sect's 1 and 2 as bkgd as needed. Josue Orellana Pages 1,2,3. Read/rfeview more if you like. Taylor Pospisil Section 4. Use earlier material as needed for bkgd. Jining Qin Section 3. Use earlier material as needed for bkgd. Lee Richardson Section 4. Use earlier material as needed for bkgd. Please focus on the structural, clarity, and reader attention & reader expectations issues we have been discussing in class, not mechanics (grammar, spelling and punctuation). If you feel compelled to comment on mechanics, do it separately. Your obligation to me is to show me that you have absorbed what we have been talking about in class and/or in the readings and hw's. Your more important obligation to the author you are reviewing is to help them make this the best paper they can. It's fine to comment on the scientific content if you like, but don't worry too much about how significant the scientific contribution is. That is obviously very important, but it is not what we have been talking about. Be aggressive and direct in your comments, suggestions and edits. If moving or rewording helps with structure, clarity, reader expectations, or helps maintain readers' attention (or just makes a better paper), then do it. a. It is never enough to say "nice!" or "I don't follow." or "huh?" or "try this" b. Give clear explanations/evidence for the changes you are suggesting, and/or the opinions you are expressing. .. but be graceful and polite. In class I talked about two ways you could make comments: by directly writing on the pdf, or by submitting a separate document. I've decided I'd like all of you to submit a separate document, written in the 2nd person -- you are writing to the author, not to me. The format is as follows (like what I scribbled on the whiteboard in class): Section 1: General comments and suggestions. * Write somewhere between a sentence and a couple of paragraphs about your overall impression of the section(s) you read, about what is good about it and about the kinds of improvements you are suggesting. Again (1) Section 2: Specific comments, suggestions and edits. * This should be an outdented list (like a description list in LaTeX) with entries like this: page 4, lines 12-15 I think you can delete the sentence "A linear trend is a straightforward and reasonable approach to modeling linear relationships (whether positive or negative)" It is redundant with other material around it and can be deleted without loss of understanding (maybe it was just scaffolding for you as you were getting going writing this section?). page 3, first 7 lines of 2nd full paragraph: The paragraph starts abruptly and doesn't lead the reader into the paragraph well. Instead we can move the second sentence to the front of the paragraph and reword somewhat, yielding something like this: "We will generalize the single-point-in-time HRM by considering a longitudinal model for the traits ¦È_{im} measured for each examinee i measured at each time point m (m = 1,...,M). Our longitudinal model for ¦È_{im} will be the sum of a deterministic trend and an AR(1) noise process." page 16, line 23: J was not defined anywhere in the paper. page 17, 2nd paragraph. Even though this is just a list of definitions, you've done a good job of motivating the definitions in terms of the tools we need to solve the problem. I like it! page 19, lines 2-3: In the second sentence here "While doing this experiment, a problem with the calibration was observed. Before we move on, we must correct it." the new information ("move on") comes in the topic position and the reference to old information ("it", the problem) in the stress position. You should switch these for easier reading: "While doing this experiment, a problem with the calibration was observed. We must correct it before we move on." Note that none of the rules or guidelines need to be followed slavishly, so if you think something the author has written (or you are suggesting) works even though it doesn't follow what we've been saying in class, that's fine. Just explain your reasoning. best, -BJ