#ERLM
# Peer Review: Risk and Contingencies
Offer comment using Acrobat's comment feature.  Address the questions below, which focus on whether the content meets the intention of the section, but you can say more about whatever else you think will help.   Since it can be hard to know what the writer intended, it is best to highlight parts you find confusing or that you may have had to read several times before understanding.  Some questions will ask you to summarize your understanding of what was written.  This will help the writer see how well their message has been communicated.

A note about spelling, grammar, and typos:  Writers should make a point to eliminate these errors from what they write.  Typos, for example, distract the reader and detract from your writing.  As editors, it is not your job to ferret these mistakes out.  Focus on the message and substance of the writing, and only comment on these annoyances if you just can't stand it.

_When you offer a criticism, offer a remedy so the writer can improve their work._
## The Review
Read the entire document.  When you read the paper, identify sections or paragraphs that you find challenging or confusing to read --- if you have to reread a paragraph to grasp its message, circle it.  These passages will need additional attention by the writer.
### Risks
- Are the risks relevant to the research? 
- Do they represent uncertainties about the research approach itself?
- Are there obvious risks or assumptions that you think are not being addressed?
### Contingencies
- Are contingency plans for each risk provided? 
- Do they represent a reasonable alternate path to the project's outcomes? 
- If the outcomes cannot be achieved, do the contingencies suggest alternate outcomes that are appropriate to the revised plan?
## Reading Structurally
Choose for analysis three paragraphs from the document; you might choose passages you circled above.  For best results, avoid opening and closing paragraphs, which function somewhat differently from the others.  It is best to choose paragraphs that are at least several sentences long, since they should offer a large number of rhetorical choices and possibilities for problems.

For one of those paragraphs, analyze the prose structurally several times, one time for each of the expectational principles.  This requires turning off the substance-reading machine you usually use when reading and turning on this new structural awareness in its place.  In other words, do not read a sentence to see if it makes sense or sounds good or seems to help develop your thought.   

Follow the [Reading Structurally](https://canvas.pitt.edu/courses/172922/pages/reading-structurally "Reading Structurally") outline.  Take notes on your observations.
### The Discussion
Meet with the author of the document you reviewed.  This meeting should be between thirty minutes (0:30) to one hour (1:00).  Discuss the passage you read.  Share with the author your perceptions about action and agency, topic/stress, and issue/point.  If there is a mismatch in the message transmitted from writer to reader, work together to rewrite the sentence, paragraph, or passage to make the message more clear.