Peer review of Fan Peng

[pengfan200455]

Opening Statement Summary This paper investigates the relationship between the size of penguin wings and their time spent in the air, using data from a Bayesian analysis model. The study also explores other datasets, such as planes, to provide additional insight.

Strong Positive Points 1.The structure of the paper is clear and well-organized, with sections logically flowing from one another. 2.The use of Bayesian modeling to analyze the data is well explained, and the methodology for fitting the model is appropriately detailed.

Critical Improvements Needed 1.Add LLM Usage Declaration: There is no mention of whether large language models (LLMs) were used in this paper. If any tool like ChatGPT was used, it must be declared as per the rubric. If not, it should be explicitly stated in the README file. 2.Improve the Title: The current title is vague. A more descriptive title would better reflect the content and findings of the paper.

Suggestions for Improvement 1.Consistency in Figures: The formatting of Figure 1 (penguins) is inconsistent with Figures 2 and 3 (planes). All figures should follow the same format for visual consistency, and the legend in Figure 2 needs to be adjusted as it appears cut off. 2.README Update: The README file should be updated to reflect the content of the paper and provide relevant information for readers who want to reproduce the analysis. 3.Additional Citations: While the paper cites several key references, it could benefit from adding more citations, particularly for the R packages used in the modeling process (e.g., rstanarm).

Please Consider Adding/Changing/Removing 1.Add a table of contents or appendix: This would improve readability and accessibility, especially for longer papers. 2.Fix Grammatical Issues: There are a few minor grammatical mistakes in the text that should be corrected for clarity. 3.Capitalize Section Titles: For example, "3.3 next steps" should be changed to "3.3 Next Steps" to follow proper formatting conventions.

Evaluation Title: 0/2 The title needs to be more informative. Author, date, and repo: 2/2 Clear information on authors, date, and repo provided. Abstract: 2/4 Lacks detail on findings and their importance; needs a more structured approach. Introduction: 3/4 The introduction gives a good background but could better articulate the research gap. Data: 7/10 Sufficient data explanation, but more analysis and summary statistics are needed. Measurement: 3/4 Measurements are briefly discussed but lack in-depth exploration. Prose: 4/6 Clear prose with minor grammatical issues. Cross-references: 2/2 All figures and tables are properly numbered and referenced. Captions: 2/2 Captions are included and descriptive. Graphs/tables/etc.: 3/4 The graphs are clear, but there are formatting issues that need attention. Referencing: 3/4 Most relevant citations are included, but more citations for packages are needed. Commits: 2/2 There are meaningful commits in the repository. Sketches: N/A Not applicable for this paper. Simulation: 4/4 The simulation is well-done and clearly explained. Tests: 4/4 Tests are used appropriately. Reproducibility: 4/4 The analysis is fully reproducible with clear documentation. Code Style: 1/1 Code style is appropriate. General Excellence: 2/3 The paper is strong overall but lacks exceptional elements.

Estimated Mark: 50/64

Reason for Evaluation The paper is solid overall but could benefit from additional work on citations, consistent graph formatting, and improvements in the title and abstract. These small adjustments will make the paper much stronger and more polished.

[aakash2002]

Thanks for the review. I've updated the repo to reflect this!