Peer review of prior scientific article
Before Peer Review:
|
|
After Peer Review:
|
|
JUSTIFICATION
justification.docx | |
File Size: | 134 kb |
File Type: | docx |
User 1
Feedback SGLT2 inhibition for diabetes treatment peer assessment The report is interesting and well researched; you obviously know a lot about the topic which is great. However, there is a lack focus to the paragraphs as well as pervasive grammatical errors which make it unclear. Getting the report proofread by someone else may help to resolve these grammatical issues. As it is being written for a general audience, try to explain things more simply and avoid jargon where possible, especially in the abstract. As an example, in the abstract you mention SGLT2 inhibition being more efficient than regular treatment, but don’t explain that EMPA is a SGLT2 inhibitor. For the introduction, because it is so long, it is vital that you explain things in logical order, starting broad and getting narrower. Think about your aims and hypothesis. What does the reader need to know to understand that? Explain only what you need to but all of what you need to. For example, a little more explanation on how insulin normally functions in the first paragraph would be helpful in understanding the effects of SGLT2 and blood glucose levels in diabetics. On the other hand, the detailed explanation of nephropathy is very specific and should be moved to later in the introduction or omitted. Is it relevant to your aims/hypothesis? If yes, explain how, if not, don’t mention it at all. The discussion flows better overall and it’s good that you repeated the aims at the beginning. However, within each paragraph it would be a good idea to work out the main point and focus on and explain that. Explaining exactly how the tests work isn’t always necessary, for example OGTT. While having a paragraph for each test may seem a good way to structure the discussion, remember that the different tests give related results and that more than one test may support the same conclusion. Consider restructuring the discussion around the main conclusions you draw from the research and use the results of the tests as evidence to support these, to avoid repetition. The future directions and conclusion sections are a good example of being well structured paragraphs.
Points Grade not available.
Feedback SGLT2 inhibition for diabetes treatment peer assessment The report is interesting and well researched; you obviously know a lot about the topic which is great. However, there is a lack focus to the paragraphs as well as pervasive grammatical errors which make it unclear. Getting the report proofread by someone else may help to resolve these grammatical issues. As it is being written for a general audience, try to explain things more simply and avoid jargon where possible, especially in the abstract. As an example, in the abstract you mention SGLT2 inhibition being more efficient than regular treatment, but don’t explain that EMPA is a SGLT2 inhibitor. For the introduction, because it is so long, it is vital that you explain things in logical order, starting broad and getting narrower. Think about your aims and hypothesis. What does the reader need to know to understand that? Explain only what you need to but all of what you need to. For example, a little more explanation on how insulin normally functions in the first paragraph would be helpful in understanding the effects of SGLT2 and blood glucose levels in diabetics. On the other hand, the detailed explanation of nephropathy is very specific and should be moved to later in the introduction or omitted. Is it relevant to your aims/hypothesis? If yes, explain how, if not, don’t mention it at all. The discussion flows better overall and it’s good that you repeated the aims at the beginning. However, within each paragraph it would be a good idea to work out the main point and focus on and explain that. Explaining exactly how the tests work isn’t always necessary, for example OGTT. While having a paragraph for each test may seem a good way to structure the discussion, remember that the different tests give related results and that more than one test may support the same conclusion. Consider restructuring the discussion around the main conclusions you draw from the research and use the results of the tests as evidence to support these, to avoid repetition. The future directions and conclusion sections are a good example of being well structured paragraphs.
Points Grade not available.
User 2
Feedback When coming to writing this type of report it can be hard to relay specifics about methodology and references to prior learning while keeping the language concise. I have found some spelling/ grammatical errors that are present throughout. Some paragraphs appear much larger than others and may be worth dividing or shortening to make use of white regions. The abstract is straight-to-the point with key methods presented throughout the report. Specify what the study was primarily focused on with the additional inclusions in a sentence following. It became confusing to decide what the actual study was focused on without further reading. The introduction is long but the subject matter has to be exposed in order to define the experiment’s relevance. As per our class it is important to convey a message without too much detail in the one package. The introduction does serve its purpose to introduce your key points that have been thoroughly discussed later on in the report but does it do it concisely? Would the same knowledge and facts be better interpreted by highlighting keywords and topics that can deliver an effective message? For example with the paragraph introducing Diabetic nephropathy: “Diabetic nephropathy would be the final stage in chronic kidney disease.” The sentence outlying a ‘brief mechanism’ should be shortened and perhaps rewritten to state that the kidney releases increased amounts of albumin when under the conditions of hypertension and hyperfusion then furthermore include a sentence describing the effects that has on the membranes as a result. When detailing the mechanisms for SGLT transport the figure could have been better suited under that paragraph as opposed to the end. I found myself referring to the figure and losing the specified context - understanding that part was vital to knowing the function of the experiment. The information follows true to the structure of a scientific report; the introduction provides a broad context which gradually provides more details on the specific area in question. Metformin appears to be the dominant treatment for T2DM and could be seen as the major alternative to the hypothesis being tested. It deserves light and emphasis would make the audience more aware of what has been used in the past/present. The paragraphs describing SGLT2 could be refined. I found the similar sentences recurring with differing words. It could be combined to make one paragraph that defines the aspects of inhibition in a concise format. Some parts are far too detailed while dying off with detail towards the end of the paragraph. By defining the information you have given you could prioritise them in a list and then decide which ones are going to be relevant to the context. Furthermore, which points can be used to cover multiple topics/facts that relate to the aim of your hypothesis.
Points Grade not available.
Feedback When coming to writing this type of report it can be hard to relay specifics about methodology and references to prior learning while keeping the language concise. I have found some spelling/ grammatical errors that are present throughout. Some paragraphs appear much larger than others and may be worth dividing or shortening to make use of white regions. The abstract is straight-to-the point with key methods presented throughout the report. Specify what the study was primarily focused on with the additional inclusions in a sentence following. It became confusing to decide what the actual study was focused on without further reading. The introduction is long but the subject matter has to be exposed in order to define the experiment’s relevance. As per our class it is important to convey a message without too much detail in the one package. The introduction does serve its purpose to introduce your key points that have been thoroughly discussed later on in the report but does it do it concisely? Would the same knowledge and facts be better interpreted by highlighting keywords and topics that can deliver an effective message? For example with the paragraph introducing Diabetic nephropathy: “Diabetic nephropathy would be the final stage in chronic kidney disease.” The sentence outlying a ‘brief mechanism’ should be shortened and perhaps rewritten to state that the kidney releases increased amounts of albumin when under the conditions of hypertension and hyperfusion then furthermore include a sentence describing the effects that has on the membranes as a result. When detailing the mechanisms for SGLT transport the figure could have been better suited under that paragraph as opposed to the end. I found myself referring to the figure and losing the specified context - understanding that part was vital to knowing the function of the experiment. The information follows true to the structure of a scientific report; the introduction provides a broad context which gradually provides more details on the specific area in question. Metformin appears to be the dominant treatment for T2DM and could be seen as the major alternative to the hypothesis being tested. It deserves light and emphasis would make the audience more aware of what has been used in the past/present. The paragraphs describing SGLT2 could be refined. I found the similar sentences recurring with differing words. It could be combined to make one paragraph that defines the aspects of inhibition in a concise format. Some parts are far too detailed while dying off with detail towards the end of the paragraph. By defining the information you have given you could prioritise them in a list and then decide which ones are going to be relevant to the context. Furthermore, which points can be used to cover multiple topics/facts that relate to the aim of your hypothesis.
Points Grade not available.