Students peer reviewed each others’ grant proposals in an undergraduate psychology course. Unlike traditional in-class peer reviews, these were completed online and discussed during a class period. The review occurred multiple times throughout the year. Students had a chance to correct their papers and then resubmit for a second peer-review. As compared to students who either did not have the benefit of a peer review, only a single faculty grade, and ones who only received a one-time review, those students whose papers were reviewed multiple times received significantly higher marks on their final papers as judged by an outside reviewer. The benefit of peer-reviewing has been experimentally demonstrated in the past (Dunn,1996; Topping, 1998) but faculty have been reluctant to use this pedagogical tool due to time constraints. The current demonstration utilized a hybrid setting where students completed the reviews online and delivered the results in a brief in-class activity.