W13A. Peer-Reviewing the Introduction Section for Research Proposals

1. Summary

1.1 Session Topic and Agenda

The session is titled Peer-reviewing the Introduction section for Research Proposals. It has two agenda components:

• AI-generated texts;
• peer-reviewing the Introduction section.

1.2 Risks of AI-Generated Text in Introduction Drafts

The session warning on AI use emphasizes quality and integrity risks that directly affect grading:

• AI text can be shallow and repetitive with weak progression of ideas, causing downgrade through Rubric Section 2;
• AI text can include falsifications and distortions, causing downgrade through Rubric Section 1;
• AI text can invent publications and researchers, causing downgrade through Rubric Section 1;
• AI text can contain plagiarism, patchwriting, and falsification, which leads to submission failure.

1.3 Note on Detection and Compliance Scrutiny

If AI usage is detected in a submission, the instructor applies enhanced compliance checks to ensure that all assignment requirements are fully met. In practical terms, detected AI use triggers stricter verification rather than relaxed acceptance.

1.4 Peer-Review Procedure for the Introduction

The review is conducted in four stages.

Stage 1 — Group targeting. Each research group decides which other group’s Introduction it will review.

Stage 2 — Individual evaluation. Each reviewer works individually, reads the assigned Introduction three times, and fills in Handout 1.

Stage 3 — In-group synthesis. Reviewers return to their own group and discuss the Stage 2 tables.

Stage 4 — Inter-group feedback exchange. Reviewers meet the reviewed group and discuss feedback directly.

1.5 Critical Independence Rule in Stage 2

During Stage 2, peer communication is prohibited. Conclusions must be drawn from the text alone before any group discussion begins. This preserves independent judgment and keeps the review evidence-based.