In computer science, peer review, also referred to as code review, is known to be an efficient technique to ensure quality when developing software projects in various industries. Peer review is one method for encouraging computer scientists benefit from each other by providing them with the opportunity to evaluate other people’s work and to receive feedback on their own work. However, this method is not commonly used among first-year Computer Science college students, due to concerns with low-quality reviews and the reliability of review scores. This study analyzes the process of peer review among first-year Computer Science colleges students by examining 1,866 completed reviews and 1,733 back evaluations to answer the following questions: 1) how accurate are first-year student peer reviews, 2) is there a correlation between review quality and student’s overall performance in the course, 3) does the review score correlate the back evaluation score, 4) are differences in peer reviews related to demographics, and 5) what attitudes do students have toward peer review. The results show that high performing students provide higher quality review in design documents, and there are differences in review quality based on gender, but no significant differences based on class standing or majors. We also find that students moderately value peer reviews, and there is minimal to no correlations between review scores and back evaluation scores in Peerceptiv. These insights have implications on how peer review is executed and leaves us with open questions on how to maximize the function of peer review among first-year Computer Science college students.