PeerReview_CommentSheet

.docx

School

Pennsylvania State University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

110

Subject

Biology

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by AdmiralCrane2848

Peer Review Comment Sheet (10 points total) Please provide thoughtful answers to these questions. Do not merely answer yes or no but provide ways the author can improve his/her report. Your grade on this assignment will be based on the quality of your feedback. I – Title: Does the title give a specific indication of what the study is about? How can the title be improved? The title described all that needed to be, I could understand what was going to be described in the lab report. II – Introduction: Is there a clear statement of the specific question or issue addressed in the research? How can this statement be improved? There was a specific goal/purpose stated of why this research was being conducted. It is stated that its aimed to understand the processes and genetic diversity of the model organism, the only thing that could be improved is how 0.5 grams of salt affects the model organism specifically to be stated exactly. It states how environmental stressors affect recombination frequencies, but it’s still important to state what is exactly being tested in this experiment. Is there a logical argument provided as to why the question or issue was addressed? How can this argument be improved? Yes, there was a specific goal stated as to why this experiment was being done and the effect the results would have. Does every sentence in the Introduction lead to the statement of what was done in this study? How can the introduction be made more concise and focused? I feel this introduction is concise and focused, the only thing that could be improved is talking more about what this experiment is about rather than the evolution canyon, but the introduction is focused. Are all statements of fact supported with a reference? Which statements need to be referenced that were not? The statement about evolution canyon is referenced with “Stevison, 2017” so I don’t think anything else needs to be referenced.

III – Materials and Methods: Are the methods written in the past tense? Fix any errors in this regard. “The other was the treatment group, which had 0.5grams of salt mixed in with the agar” – 7 th sentence of materials and methods – add space between 0.5 and grams. “You then add one-two drops of water onto the slide” – 14 th sentence of materials and methods – not in past tense and use of you, could instead say: “Then one-two drops of water were added onto the slide.” - The whole section about how the experiment was done is not in the past tense, could be left the way it is, or could be rewritten like the example about, making it not use “we” and making it in the past tense. Is the design of the study stated clearly and completely? How can the statement of the design be improved? The design of the study is stated clearly and completely, only improvement that can be made is what is stated in last questions, that the method could be rewritten so that it is in true past tense and not using “we”, and “you.” Otherwise the design of the study is great. Is the rationale for each step clearly indicated? (Hint: does the information in the Materials and Methods section match the information from Homework #5 where you were asked to write out the rationale for each step of the study procedure?). How can the rationale statements be improved? Yes, the rationale for each step is clearly indicated, but still only thing that could be improved is what I stated above. Is the study organism described in this section? How can this description be improved? The study organism is described in this section accurately, one thing that can added is that the agar plates sat for two weeks in a laboratory environment.

IV – Results: Does the text summarize important findings in the data? Does the author avoid simply repeating raw data from the graphs or tables? How can this be improved? The text is a summarization of findings in the data. And they do not repeat raw data multiple times. It can be improved by not having results included between figures – it can be a bit difficult to tell what is a caption to the figures compared to result data that show be read. Are the results presented in the past tense? Fix any errors in this regard. “In the control data table, we can see there is an even distribution across the different recombinant and non-recombinant ratios.” – “is” needs to replaced to “was.” Are all general statements supported with reference to the data? How can this be improved? Yes, mostly, the results section could have a little more reference to data. But it does relate back to the figures, so I think the results section is strong,. Are all major results presented in words without discussing their implications? Yes, but the number of recombinants vs non-recombinants could be stated. Has the author avoided presenting raw data? Fix any errors in this regard. Yes, the author avoided presenting raw data. Are all figures appropriately referred to as “Figures” and not as “Graphs”? Fix any errors in this regard. Does every figure have an informative caption or legend correctly placed below the figure? Fix any errors in this regard.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version