  Peer review meetings (PRMs) are formal meetings during which peers
systematically analyze artifacts to improve their quality and report on
non-conformities. This paper presents an approach based on protocol analysis
for quantifying the influence of participant roles during PRMs. Three views are
used to characterize the seven defined participant roles. The project view
defines three roles supervisor, procedure expert and developer. The meeting
view defines two roles: author and reviewer, and the task view defines the
roles reflecting direct and indirect interest in the artifact under review. The
analysis, based on log-linear modeling, shows that review activities have
different patterns, depending on their focus: form or content. The influence of
each role is analyzed with respect to this focus. Interpretation of the
quantitative data leads to the suggestion that PRMs could be improved by
creating three different types of reviews, each of which collects together
specific roles: form review, cognitive synchronization review and content
review.
