Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
56 lines (33 loc) · 1.68 KB

reviewer_template.md

File metadata and controls

56 lines (33 loc) · 1.68 KB

{{ date of review yyyy-mm-dd }} - {{ product title }} peer review

{{ name of reviewer }}

Scope of review

{{ delete as appropriate

  • Code review
  • Validity of method to question
  • Verification of methods
  • Documentation
  • Working practices of team }}

Give details about what you have been asked to review.

General comments

Consider the following questions:

  • has the product been reviewed before? If so, what changes have been made since the last review?

Detailed comments

Code review

  • How does the product manage dependencies on software and data?
  • How is the product tested?

Validity of method

  • Is there evidence of user need for this output?
  • Is there evidence of user research regarding the approach taken to create this output?
  • What alternative methods were considered and why were they rejected?
  • What techniques have other people used to measure a similar output?

Verification of methods

  • How easy was the product to reproduce by you? Was there enough documentation to do so?

Documentation

  • Does the product have an assumptions log, a data register, a list of roles and responsibilities?
  • Is it easy to find out why decisions have been made?

Working practices of team

  • Is the product version controlled?
  • Are the team appropriately skilled given the complexity of the work?
  • Do team members have a good understanding of the limitations of the inputs, methods and
  • Is there pressure on the team to deliver to timelines at the expense of accuracy, quality or calculation/communication of uncertainty?
  • Do managers of the product allow for open and transparent discussions of concerns and risks, escalated when appropriate?