Module 19 Activity Worksheet

Module: Module 19: Peer Review and Scientific Ethics
Duration: 4 hours
Generated from the module page. Edit modules/module19.md, not this file.

Capability target

Produce a technically rigorous manuscript review and an ethics-risk decision memo for a connectomics study, including actionable recommendations and integrity safeguards. Students will be able to distinguish constructive criticism from destructive criticism, identify the specific ethical challenges that arise in large-scale connectomics collaborations, and make documented decisions when facing ambiguous integrity situations.

You are done when you can demonstrate this, not when you have filled in every box below.

Before you start

Check that you have:

• Ability to interpret methods/results sections
• Basic understanding of reproducibility and QC terms

Bring one question you already have about this topic. Write it here so you can check at the end whether it was answered:

My question:

Questions this module answers

Keep these in view. At the end, answer each in one sentence.

1. What makes a review technically useful instead of opinion-based?
   • Your answer:
2. Where do integrity risks appear in large-scale connectomics projects?
   • Your answer:
3. How should authorship and credit be managed in consortium settings?
   • Your answer:

The task

Scenario: Your team is acting as reviewers for a connectomics preprint claiming a novel circuit motif — a specific three-neuron feed-forward inhibitory loop — with translational implications for understanding epilepsy. The preprint uses MICrONS minnie65 data (CAVE materialization v661) and reports 3.5x enrichment of this motif relative to a degree-preserving random graph null model (p < 0.001 after Bonferroni correction across 13 three-node motif classes). The methods section does not report the synapse confidence threshold, does not mention boundary neuron handling, and lists “MICrONS Consortium” as a co-author without individual contribution details. The discussion section states that “this motif likely plays a causal role in seizure propagation.”

1. Write one methods critique (specific: what is missing, why it matters, what the authors should add) and one interpretation critique (specific: which sentence overclaims, what the bounded version would say).
2. Identify two ethics risks: (a) the authorship/attribution concern and (b) one additional concern (selective reporting, consent, data sharing, or responsible AI). For each, draft a concrete mitigation recommendation.
3. Draft a decision memo: accept with revisions, major revisions, or reject. Justify your recommendation by referencing your specific concerns.
4. Propose one concrete integrity policy improvement for the project team (e.g., a contribution tracking system, a preregistration requirement, a threshold sensitivity analysis mandate).

What you hand in

• Structured review form (claims, methods audit, evidence gaps, interpretation audit)
• Ethics-risk memo with two identified risks and concrete mitigations
• Decision memo with recommendation and traceable rationale
• One-paragraph integrity policy proposal

Working checklist

Tick as you go. If you skip a step, write why — a skipped step with a stated reason is a decision; a skipped step without one is a gap.

• Pre-review framing
• Methods-evidence audit
• Interpretation audit
• Ethics-risk scan
• Actionable response package

Evidence and reasoning

Fill one row per claim you make in your artifact. A claim without a limitation is not finished.

Confidence. For your main claim, mark one and say why:

• High — two or more independent lines of evidence agree
• Medium — one strong line, or several that share a weakness
• Uncertain — the deciding evidence is not available to me

Why:

One alternative I considered and rejected, and the reason:

Misconception self-check

These are the errors this module is designed to prevent. Confirm you did not make them, or note where you nearly did:

• I did not assume: “interesting result” is not a substitute for methodological soundness. A novel finding reported with inadequate methods documentation is worse than an incremental finding reported transparently.
• I did not assume: Ethics in connectomics is not just about IRB approval. It extends to data sharing, attribution, responsible AI, and honest reporting throughout the research lifecycle.
• I did not assume: “interesting result” is not a substitute for methodological soundness.
• I did not assume: Being harsh is not the same as being rigorous. The most rigorous reviews are also the most specific and constructive.
• I did not assume: Compliance checklists alone do not ensure good practice. Integrity requires ongoing attention to workflow transparency.
• I did not assume: Contribution volume alone does not define authorship role. A person who proofread 10,000 segments may deserve authorship; a person who ran one analysis script may not. The criteria must be explicit and agreed upon in advance.

Session timing (facilitator reference)

Rubric

Score yourself before anyone else does. Where you fall short, name the specific next action rather than a general intention.

• Minimum pass
  • Review comments are specific and evidence-linked (referencing figure panels, methods details, or specific sentences).
  • Ethics risks are identified with concrete mitigations tied to workflow practices.
  • Recommendation is consistent with documented findings.
• Strong performance
  • Distinguishes fixable technical issues from fundamental validity failures.
  • Balances rigor with constructive tone and practical revision advice.
  • Uses transparent criteria for authorship/integrity judgments.
  • Anticipates author responses and pre-addresses potential objections.
• Common failure modes
  • Generic critique with no evidence references (“the statistics are weak”).
  • Ethics discussion disconnected from actual workflow practices.
  • Inconsistent recommendation versus identified risks (e.g., listing major concerns but recommending accept with minor revisions).
  • Destructive tone that undermines the credibility of valid criticisms.

My self-assessment:

• Strongest part of my work, and the evidence for that:
• Weakest part, and the specific next action:

Exit prompt

Choose a connectomics abstract (from a real paper or the mock preprint) and produce:

1. One high-priority methods concern (what is missing, why it matters, what should be added).
2. One interpretation concern (which sentence overclaims, what the bounded version would say).
3. One ethics/integrity concern (tied to a specific workflow practice, not an abstract principle).
4. One actionable revision request for each of the above, written in constructive language.

Your answer:

Peer review (swap worksheets)

Reviewing someone else’s reasoning is the fastest way to see the gaps in your own. Assess the evidence quality, not whether you agree with the conclusion.

• Is every claim paired with specific evidence?
• Is at least one limitation stated, and is it a real one?
• Is the confidence level justified by the number of independent evidence lines?
• One thing this person did better than me:
• One question I would ask them:

Module page: /modules/module19/ · Slides: /modules/slides/module19/ · Facilitator guide