Build a peer-review design review

Usage

build_peer_review_design_review(peer_review_design, top_n = 10)

Arguments

peer_review_design: A generated data frame carrying the mfrm_peer_review_design attribute, the attribute itself, or its overview data frame.
top_n: Number of reviewer-load, submission-load, common-link, and reciprocal-pair rows to keep in compact summary tables.

Value

A bundle of class mfrm_peer_review_design_review.

Details

build_peer_review_design_review() converts peer-review simulation metadata into a reportable design-review object. The review summarizes self-review checks, reviewer and submission load, common submissions per reviewer pair, and reciprocal review pairs. These rows are assignment-design diagnostics: they do not replace MFRM estimates, fit, separation, reliability, or substantive review-quality evidence.

Peer-review use of MFRM follows studies that model peer/self/teacher rater severity and leniency. Common-link anchor interpretation follows sparse rater-mediated design work; the review status is therefore descriptive and conservative rather than a literature-derived universal adequacy cutoff.

References

Farrokhi, F., Esfandiari, R., & Schaefer, E. (2012). A many-facet Rasch measurement of differential rater severity/leniency in three types of assessment. JALT Journal, 34(1), 79-102. doi:10.37546/JALTJJ34.1-3.
Uto, M., & Ueno, M. (2020). A generalized many-facet Rasch model and its Bayesian estimation using Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. Behaviormetrika, 47, 469-496. doi:10.1007/s41237-020-00115-7.
DeMars, C. E., Shapovalov, Y. A., & Hathcoat, J. D. (2023). Many-Facet Rasch Designs: How Should Raters be Assigned to Examinees? NCME presentation.

Examples

if (FALSE) { # interactive()
peer_spec <- build_peer_review_sim_spec(
  n_submission = 12,
  n_criterion = 3,
  reviewers_per_submission = 2,
  anchor_submissions = 2
)
peer_sim <- simulate_mfrm_data(sim_spec = peer_spec, seed = 123)
review <- build_peer_review_design_review(peer_sim)
summary(review)$overview
}