How Do You Peer-Review a Classmate’s HSC Science Report?

Your classmate’s science report has a neat graph and a confident conclusion: “These results prove the relationship is always true.” But the experiment only tested three conditions. You’ve spotted a problem. Should you rewrite their conclusion, correct the graph, or simply point out what doesn’t add up?

The best peer review identifies gaps in reasoning, checks whether results can be traced to evidence, and questions claims that go beyond the data. It leaves the actual corrections to the author. Before doing any of that, though, you need to check whether your teacher permits peer feedback on the assessment.

The aim is to help your classmate notice something they may have missed, without doing their assessed work for them.

01First, check what peer feedback is allowed

Imagine your classmate says, “I’ve finished my report. Can you read it and fix anything that’s wrong?”

Does their permission make it acceptable to edit the report?

No. Your classmate can ask for help, but they cannot override the assessment conditions set by the school.

What NESA requires

The NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA) requires students to complete assessments honestly and acknowledge work originating from others. Inappropriate collaboration on work intended for individual assessment can constitute collusion.

NESA’s ACE rules on malpractice identify sharing assessment answers, submitting work substantially contributed to by another person, and knowingly assisting malpractice as serious concerns.

That doesn’t mean every discussion between students is forbidden. NESA’s All My Own Work guidance on collaboration distinguishes legitimate collaborative learning from copying and collusion.

The important question is what your particular assessment permits.

What your school decides

Schools provide written malpractice policies for school-based assessment. Your task notification may also specify whether you can:

• Discuss scientific ideas with classmates.
• Exchange drafts for peer feedback.
• Comment on data, graphs, or calculations.
• Receive sentence-level editing or proofreading.
• Use shared experimental observations.
• Work collaboratively on particular sections.

These permissions are not interchangeable.

A teacher might allow a group to collect measurements together but require every student to process the data, write their evaluation, and produce their conclusion independently.

Likewise, permission to discuss a scientific concept doesn’t automatically mean permission to examine another student’s assessed draft.

A simple decision process

Before reading a classmate’s assessed report, work through these questions.

1. Does the task explicitly permit peer review? If not, ask the teacher before exchanging drafts.
2. Which parts can you review? Follow any restrictions on drafts, data, graphs, calculations, and conclusions.
3. Are you identifying a problem or providing completed work? A question about an unsupported claim is different from writing the replacement paragraph.
4. Could the author explain the final work independently? If your contribution becomes part of their assessed response, check whether it is authorised and how it must be acknowledged.
5. Is the feedback itself permitted to be recorded or shared? Follow the teacher’s directions about comments, feedback forms, draft histories, and acknowledgements.

The distinction is especially important for depth studies. A depth study can involve substantial investigation, but its format doesn’t automatically determine whether peer editing is allowed.

The rule to remember: Permission to receive feedback is not necessarily permission to submit someone else’s work.

As at 10 November 2026, NESA’s 2027 HSC student guide confirms students’ responsibilities for academic honesty and retaining evidence of their work. Your school’s current policy and task notification still govern permitted collaboration on its assessments.

02Use three passes: reasoning, data traceability, and claims

Once you know what you’re allowed to review, resist the temptation to start correcting spelling.

A science report is built around a chain of evidence:

Observations → processed data → scientific reasoning → conclusion

Your job is to check whether the connections are justified.

This is a useful first model, but it’s not a guarantee of scientific accuracy. Data can be perfectly traceable and still come from an experiment with uncontrolled variables or faulty equipment.

The Working Scientifically skills provide the broader scientific foundation. Here, we’ll focus on how to use those skills when commenting on someone else’s report.

Pass 1: Check the scientific reasoning

Read the investigation question, results, and conclusion together.

Look for a connection between what the student set out to test, what they actually measured, and what they think the measurements mean.

Ask:

• Does the conclusion answer the original investigation question?
• Are the observations clearly separated from the student’s interpretation?
• Could another variable explain the result?
• Are claims about cause and effect justified by the experimental controls?
• Has the student addressed evidence that contradicts the expected pattern?

Consider an experiment in which a student changes both the temperature and concentration of a reacting solution.

If the reaction becomes faster, they cannot confidently attribute the entire change to temperature. Concentration is another possible explanation.

Useful feedback would be:

“Both temperature and concentration changed between these trials. How can you tell which variable caused the difference in reaction time?”

That identifies the weakness without writing the evaluation for them.

Pass 2: Trace the data backwards

Pick an important graph value or calculated result.

Can you follow it back to an original measurement, dataset, or identified secondary source?

This is data traceability: being able to explain where a reported result came from and what happened to the data along the way.

One particularly useful check is to ask why a value disappeared.

Suppose a student recorded three trials but graphed only two because the third “looked wrong”.

That third reading might genuinely be affected by a recording error or equipment fault. It might also be a valid result that exposes a weakness in the method.

You shouldn’t automatically delete it or insist that it must be included. Ask what evidence supports the decision.

Pass 3: Check the strength of each claim

Scientific writing needs to distinguish between what the evidence shows and what the student thinks might explain it.

Compare these statements:

A peer reviewer doesn’t need to make the student’s conclusion sound more impressive.

They need to notice when the wording claims more than the experiment establishes.

03How to write a useful peer-review comment

A good comment has three parts:

Location → observation → question

Identify the specific place in the report, explain what you’ve noticed, and ask something the author can investigate.

These examples assume the task permits comments on those features.

Be careful with apparently helpful actions such as rewriting sentences, correcting calculations, or editing a graph directly. They may cross the authorship boundary even when your correction is scientifically sound.

04A final checklist before returning feedback

Use this checklist only for the kinds of feedback your teacher has authorised.

Scientific reasoning

• [ ] The investigation question and conclusion address the same relationship.
• [ ] The reasoning distinguishes observations from interpretations.
• [ ] Alternative explanations and uncontrolled variables are considered.
• [ ] Scientific terms are used accurately.

Data traceability

• [ ] Important reported values can be traced to raw observations or identified sources.
• [ ] Graph labels, quantities, and units agree with the data.
• [ ] Calculations and data-processing decisions are explainable.
• [ ] Excluded readings and corrections have a documented basis.

Claims and limitations

• [ ] Conclusions stay within the investigated conditions.
• [ ] Uncertainty is acknowledged where it affects interpretation.
• [ ] Contradictory evidence is not silently ignored.
• [ ] The report does not claim causation without suitable evidence.

Academic integrity

• [ ] The task permits this form of peer feedback.
• [ ] Comments identify issues rather than supply unauthorised completed work.
• [ ] The author remains responsible for their calculations, analysis, and writing.
• [ ] Any contributions or assistance are recorded and acknowledged as required by the teacher.
• [ ] Neither student has altered original evidence to make the results appear stronger.

If the task forbids draft exchange, don’t use the checklist on a classmate’s live assessment. You can still use it to review your own work or practise on a teacher-provided example.

05Questions and solutions

These are original practice scenarios, not real student submissions. Assume each task has the specific peer-review permissions stated in the question.

Question 1

A classmate’s raw notebook records two observations at 2.0 minutes and 4.0 minutes.

Their graph uses the numerical values 2.0 and 4.0 on the horizontal axis, but labels that axis “Time (s)”.

The teacher permits written peer feedback but prohibits editing another student’s graph.

Identify the problem, write one appropriate peer-review comment, and explain one action you must not take.

Solution 1

The graph has a possible unit mismatch. The reviewer should ask whether the times were converted before plotting and must not directly edit the graph.

The raw observations are recorded in minutes, whereas the graph label says seconds.

For comparison, converting 2.0 minutes gives:

\[ 2.0\,\mathrm{min} \times60\,\mathrm{s\,min}^{-1} =120\,\mathrm{s} \]

The factor \(60\,\mathrm{s\,min}^{-1}\) means 60 seconds per minute.

A plotted time of 2.0 seconds is therefore not equivalent to 2.0 minutes.

An appropriate comment is:

“The raw notebook records minutes, but the graph axis is labelled seconds. Were the values converted before plotting, or does the axis label need checking?”

The tempting approach is to correct the axis immediately. However, the reviewer cannot know whether the author intended to plot minutes or seconds without checking the original processing.

Because direct editing is prohibited, the author must resolve the discrepancy independently.

Question 2

A student investigates whether increasing temperature makes a chemical reaction faster.

The same fixed extent of reaction is used as the endpoint in both trials. The recorded results are:

The student plots the numerical values 80 and 40 on a graph labelled “Rate (s\(^{-1}\))”.

Their conclusion states: “Increasing the temperature doubled the reaction rate.”

The teacher permits written questions about data processing and scientific reasoning but prohibits students from correcting each other’s calculations.

Identify the problems with the graph and conclusion. Explain what the recorded times can establish, what they cannot establish, and write two permissible peer-review comments.

Solution 2

The graph confuses reaction time with a rate measure, and the conclusion cannot isolate temperature as the cause because concentration also changed.

First, the numbers 80 and 40 are times measured in seconds. They cannot simply be relabelled as rates in inverse seconds.

For a fixed reaction endpoint, a useful comparative rate index is:

\[ r=\frac{1}{t} \]

Here, \(r\) is the rate index in \(\mathrm{s}^{-1}\), and \(t\) is the time to reach the endpoint in seconds.

The corresponding values are:

\[ \begin{aligned} r_A&=\frac{1}{80\,\mathrm{s}}\\ &=0.0125\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}\\[4pt] r_B&=\frac{1}{40\,\mathrm{s}}\\ &=0.0250\,\mathrm{s}^{-1} \end{aligned} \]

The rate index for B is twice that for A.

However, this index is not automatically the reaction rate in concentration per unit time. It is a comparison based on time to the same endpoint.

More importantly, temperature and concentration both increased between A and B.

The shorter time could reflect the change in temperature, the change in concentration, or contributions from both. The experiment does not distinguish these possibilities.

Two suitable comments are:

1. “The values plotted as rates appear to be the original times. How did you convert time into the quantity shown on the vertical axis?”
2. “Both temperature and concentration changed between the trials. What evidence allows you to attribute the difference specifically to temperature?”

A student might be tempted to supply the corrected rate values and rewrite the conclusion because the scientific issue seems clear.

But the assessment explicitly requires independent calculations. The reviewer can identify both problems without completing the assessed analysis.

Question 3

Two Physics students collect voltage readings from the same circuit during a teacher-approved group investigation.

Their assessment notification states:

• Students may share the original experimental measurements.
• Each student must independently process the data, construct graphs, evaluate reliability, and write conclusions.

Student A exports the original time-voltage measurements into a spreadsheet. They also add calculated averages, labels marking certain readings for exclusion, and a completed graph.

Student B receives the spreadsheet, copies the processed columns and graph, changes the graph’s appearance, and writes a conclusion in different words.

Student A argues that the assessment permits sharing data. Student B argues that their conclusion is original because the wording is different.

Which parts of this collaboration are permitted? What is the authorship problem, and what should Student B do?

Solution 3

Sharing the original time-voltage observations is permitted under this task, but copying Student A’s processing decisions and graph breaches the stated requirement for independent analysis.

The crucial distinction is between experimental observations and the assessed work produced from those observations.

Both students can legitimately start with the same recorded measurements.

However, averages, decisions to exclude readings, graph construction, and evaluation are explicitly individual components.

Changing a graph’s appearance does not make the underlying analytical work independent. Neither does paraphrasing a conclusion if the student has relied on another person’s assessed processing.

Student B should return to the authorised raw dataset and independently:

• Check the observations and their units.
• Perform the required calculations.
• Decide how to treat unusual readings, with justification.
• Construct their own graph.
• Develop their own evaluation and conclusion.
• Retain evidence of their work process.

If unauthorised copying has already occurred, Student B should disclose the situation to the teacher and follow the school’s instructions.

The tempting opposite argument is that identical datasets, or even similar graphs, must prove collusion. That is also wrong.

Students using the same legitimate raw data may independently obtain identical numerical answers. The problem is not similarity by itself; it is whether each student performed the work that the assessment required them to complete independently.

A peer reviewer should raise the task-condition concern rather than personally decide whether misconduct occurred.

Question 4

A student uses a pH probe to monitor a solution during an investigation at 25 °C.

Their recorded readings are:

• Initial pH: 6.90
• Final pH: 7.10

The report concludes:

1. “The pH increased during the investigation.”
2. “The solution changed from acidic to basic.”

You notice that the student’s calibration notes establish that the probe read 0.30 pH units too high throughout the measurement range. Assume this offset is constant and the calibration finding is reliable.

The teacher permits feedback questions about evidence and measurement reliability but does not permit you to edit the report.

Determine which conclusions remain supported after accounting for the calibration error. Explain how the author should handle the correction without concealing the original readings.

Solution 4

The conclusion that pH increased remains supported, but the claim that the solution became basic is not supported once the known calibration offset is accounted for.

Because the probe consistently reads 0.30 pH units too high, the corrected values are:

\[ \begin{aligned} \mathrm{pH}_{i}&=6.90-0.30\\ &=6.60\\[4pt] \mathrm{pH}_{f}&=7.10-0.30\\ &=6.80 \end{aligned} \]

Here, \(\mathrm{pH}_{i}\) is the corrected initial pH, and \(\mathrm{pH}_{f}\) is the corrected final pH. pH is dimensionless.

The change is:

\[ \begin{aligned} \Delta\mathrm{pH}&=6.80-6.60\\ &=+0.20 \end{aligned} \]

The positive change confirms that pH increased.

However, both corrected readings are below pH 7. At 25 °C, this means the solution remained acidic.

The key distinction is between an absolute measurement and a change between measurements.

A constant offset affects the absolute values but cancels when the final reading is subtracted from the initial reading.

The tempting response is to assume that any instrument error invalidates every conclusion. That is too broad. The effect of an error depends on how the measurement is used.

A suitable peer-review comment would be:

“Your calibration notes indicate that the probe read consistently high. How does that affect the claim that the solution became basic, and does it affect the observed change in pH?”

The author should preserve the original readings, document the calibration evidence, explain any corrections, and revise the interpretation independently.

Simply replacing the raw records with corrected values would conceal how the data were obtained.

Question 5

A science class investigates how temperature affects the time taken for an enzyme reaction to reach a fixed colour-change endpoint.

A shorter time indicates a faster reaction under otherwise comparable conditions.

The class tests two temperatures, 20 °C and 40 °C, at two pH values, 5 and 7.

The individual recorded times are:

All 20 °C experiments used enzyme batch X. All 40 °C experiments used enzyme batch Y. The enzyme batches were prepared separately, and their relative activities were not independently checked.

The report’s author calculates one overall mean time for each temperature and concludes:

“Raising the temperature to 40 °C makes the enzyme reaction faster.”

The task permits students to use the shared raw readings, but all calculations, comparisons, and conclusions must be completed independently. Peer reviewers may ask questions about reasoning, but cannot supply derived tables or replacement interpretations.

Evaluate the following:

1. Does comparing the overall mean times justify the author’s conclusion?
2. What changes when the results are compared separately at pH 5 and pH 7?
3. Is it then justified to conclude that 20 °C causes a faster reaction?
4. What experimental change would allow a more defensible causal comparison?
5. How should a peer reviewer raise the problem without performing the author’s assessed analysis?

Solution 5

Neither temperature can be established as the cause of faster enzyme activity from this experiment. The overall means are distorted by unequal pH distributions, while the within-pH comparisons are still confounded by the use of different enzyme batches.

There are two separate problems, and solving the first does not solve the second.

1. The overall means give a misleading comparison.

Let \(\bar t\) represent the mean reaction time in seconds.

At 20 °C:

\[ \begin{aligned} \bar t_{20} &=\frac{3(40)+10}{4}\,\mathrm{s}\\ &=\frac{130}{4}\,\mathrm{s}\\ &=32.5\,\mathrm{s} \end{aligned} \]

At 40 °C:

\[ \begin{aligned} \bar t_{40} &=\frac{44+3(14)}{4}\,\mathrm{s}\\ &=\frac{86}{4}\,\mathrm{s}\\ &=21.5\,\mathrm{s} \end{aligned} \]

The pooled mean time is shorter at 40 °C.

A student might confidently conclude that the higher temperature produced a faster reaction.

But notice how the trials were distributed.

Most of the 20 °C trials occurred at pH 5, where reaction times were longer. Most of the 40 °C trials occurred at pH 7, where reaction times were shorter.

The two temperature groups therefore contain different proportions of two experimental conditions.

2. Comparing within each pH reverses the apparent pattern.

At pH 5:

• 20 °C: 40 s
• 40 °C: 44 s

At pH 7:

• 20 °C: 10 s
• 40 °C: 14 s

At both pH values, the recorded time is shorter at 20 °C.

This is a reversal of the pattern suggested by the overall means.

The effect is an example of Simpson’s paradox: a relationship visible in aggregated data can differ from, or even reverse, the relationships observed within separate groups.

It occurs here because the groups have unequal proportions of trials conducted under different pH conditions.

3. The reversed pattern still does not prove that 20 °C causes faster reactions.

This is the deeper problem.

Every trial at 20 °C used enzyme batch X, while every trial at 40 °C used batch Y.

Temperature and enzyme batch changed together.

Consequently, even the within-pH differences could be partly or entirely caused by differences in enzyme activity between batches.

The data cannot separate those effects.

A student who notices the misleading averages might confidently replace the conclusion with “20 °C makes the enzyme faster”.

But that would exchange one unsupported causal claim for another.

The observations establish that the recorded reaction times were shorter at 20 °C within both tested pH groups. They do not establish temperature as the cause.

4. A better investigation would separate temperature from enzyme batch and pH.

The class could use the same suitably prepared enzyme batch across the temperature conditions, hold pH constant for each matched comparison, and repeat trials at both temperatures.

If multiple enzyme batches are unavoidable, each batch should be tested at both temperatures rather than assigning one batch to each temperature.

This would allow temperature effects to be compared without perfectly confounding temperature with batch identity.

Other relevant conditions, including substrate concentration, reaction volumes, measurement method, and endpoint definition, should also be controlled.

The improvement is not simply to collect more measurements. It is to collect measurements that can distinguish competing explanations.

5. The reviewer should identify the comparisons and controls that need examining, not provide a completed analysis.

Useful comments include:

“The two temperature groups contain different numbers of trials at each pH. Would comparing results separately at each pH change the interpretation?”

“All 20 °C trials used one enzyme batch and all 40 °C trials used another. What evidence would let you separate a temperature effect from a batch effect?”

These questions direct the author towards the problems without supplying calculated averages or a replacement conclusion.

The reviewer should not send their own completed analysis merely because it is scientifically correct.

The real lesson is that three things must remain separate: the evidence actually recorded, the conclusion that evidence can support, and the work each student is authorised to contribute.

A strong peer review helps the author recognise where those boundaries lie. The next useful decision is whether the existing evidence can answer the investigation question at all, or whether a better-controlled experiment is needed.