![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Unforth's Guide to Peer Review Notes
Apr. 17th, 2008 10:52 pmFor those who don't know, I'm in Syracuse, participating in the Peer Review process for the 21st CCLC grants (the ones I went crazy writing in February and March). I've now read my alloted 10 (25 pages each; I've read 10 in the past 37 hours; I've worked for more than 24 of those hours). Three have been pretty good. Three have been average. And four, a lucky four, have ranged from dreadful to appalling. Which I'm too tired to spell right. So now I present: Guide to My Comments.
"Good" - Good.
"Great" - Great.
"Wow!" - That's pretty impressive!
"Yay!" - Wow, that is phenomenally unimpressive.
"?" - I'm not even sure what this means!
"Uh..." - This makes no sense.
"No" - No
"Really" - Are you sure about that?
"Oh rly?" - Absolutely not, no, not a chance, you have no clue what you're talking about.
"Not Reasonable" - Have you worked in a school before? Ever?
"OMG" - How could you even write that?
"OMFG" - This is so unbelievablely unreasonable that my astonishment is inexpressible.
"Data?" - Do you have any evidence of what you're saying at all??
"WTF" - What possessed you to ever even vaguely believe this might possibly be relevent?
"Plug-n-Play" - Nice boiler plate. But, uh, gotcha.
(music notes) - Now that is some mighty impressive data manipulation skillz.
Sadly, due to the nature of the Peer Review Process, the people I'm reviewing will never see these, or any of my far more relevent, comments written on to their grants - the copies I'm reading will be shredded by the end of next week. All they'll get is the sanitized (read: "informative") versions in their evaluation sheets. Now, I ask you, what fun is that? My only consolation is that on the worst ones, even my sanitized say things like "This section is a mess" and "THIS IS NOT AN SUSTAINABILITY PLAN!" Ah, fun times.
"Good" - Good.
"Great" - Great.
"Wow!" - That's pretty impressive!
"Yay!" - Wow, that is phenomenally unimpressive.
"?" - I'm not even sure what this means!
"Uh..." - This makes no sense.
"No" - No
"Really" - Are you sure about that?
"Oh rly?" - Absolutely not, no, not a chance, you have no clue what you're talking about.
"Not Reasonable" - Have you worked in a school before? Ever?
"OMG" - How could you even write that?
"OMFG" - This is so unbelievablely unreasonable that my astonishment is inexpressible.
"Data?" - Do you have any evidence of what you're saying at all??
"WTF" - What possessed you to ever even vaguely believe this might possibly be relevent?
"Plug-n-Play" - Nice boiler plate. But, uh, gotcha.
(music notes) - Now that is some mighty impressive data manipulation skillz.
Sadly, due to the nature of the Peer Review Process, the people I'm reviewing will never see these, or any of my far more relevent, comments written on to their grants - the copies I'm reading will be shredded by the end of next week. All they'll get is the sanitized (read: "informative") versions in their evaluation sheets. Now, I ask you, what fun is that? My only consolation is that on the worst ones, even my sanitized say things like "This section is a mess" and "THIS IS NOT AN SUSTAINABILITY PLAN!" Ah, fun times.
