to write comment for review papers

Anonymous
timer Asked: Nov 26th, 2018
account_balance_wallet $35

Question description

to write comment for review papers, . Compose a brief editorial (minimum of 1.5 pages single spaced, 12 point, 1” margins) on what you thought of their study. Closely examine the notes I presented in class on how to write a Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Literature Cited sections to make sure the authors of your paper followed the format. When you refer to specific places in the ms, cite the slide number, table, figure, paragraph, and other info pertaining to your comment (you can also add a comment coding system and then write this code in the ms in). Your review should also address the greater context of this study, i.e. why is this study important and what does it mean? Also, think about the comments and discussion raised during the symposium and follow up on some of issues – if you agree with them. Points you might also mention include:...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Trail Effects in Understory Plant Communities in Ridley Creek State Park. Journal Critique Synopsis of the Journal The primary purpose of the study was to examine the effects of trail on understory plant communities in Ridley Creek State Park. It is worthwhile to note that the authors achieved the stated objective by addressing two research questions. First, the authors seek to establish whether the human-made trails affect the number and diversity of species within the ecosystem. Also, the authors pursue to determine whether the trails influence the distribution of plants. Therefore, the main issue addressed in the study revolves around the impact of trails on biodiversity. The authors decided to conduct this study because previous studies indicated that human-made trails have both drawbacks and benefits to the ecosystem. For instance, previous studies suggest that human-made trails facilitate seed dispensation and pollination. In particular, when animal and human pass through the trails they carry seeds to another locality; hence, mediating seed dispersal. Additionally, these trails allow the large animal to pass as they search for food and water. The disturbance due to animals and humans activities cause changes in soil composition thus causing habitat fragmentation, which affects the biodiversity along the trails. Notably, such trails disturb some species, especially the ones that grow towards the trails. The trails have less vegetation growth because of soil disturbance. Therefore, the authors decided to conduct this research to validate the results of previous studies. Editorial of the Journal The authors made various parts of the article to be clear to the readers. They managed to use an appropriate title, which provides the focus of the study thus drawing the attention of the readers. Additionally, the title reveals that the study was conducted in Ridley Creek State Park. The introduction provides an idea about the trail that the study examines. However, the introduction does not adequately provide the focus of the study. For instance, it does not state that the focus of this study is to determine the effect of trail on the understory plant communities. Notably, the article lacks an abstract. An abstract is essential since it provides a summary of an article. Also, the researchers failed to provide a conclusion of the study. The researchers used pertinent articles in this study. They utilized both the recent and previous to provide valuable information on the previous and current research about the effect of trails on the understory plant communities. However, they only used two articles, which may be inadequate for this research. The English used is suitable for this study hence the readers can understand the concepts presented. They minimized the used of jargon hence enabling all the readers to understand the concepts in the article. It important to note that the authors did not include the hypothesis of this study in the article. The authors used a mixed method in the study. The researchers clearly outlined the study procedures used in this research. Notably, they used quantitative and qualitative approaches in determining the effects of trails on the plant species. This technique was appropriate since it increases precision by adding numbers to narratives, pictures, and word. The researchers provided a map with GPS coordinates which show the areas where samples were collected using the belt transects. Also, different colors such as red transect, yellow transects differentiate the various areas where the collection of data occurred. The researchers took a picture of the site when they were conducting belt transects. The pictures show the sections of the trails where the researchers collected the data. The authors used a diagram to demonstrate the dimensions of the belt transects. The belt transects used were 8 meters from the beginning of the trail and went inwards. After that, four square meter boxes, which are 1 meter apart, were made within the 8-meter length. This approach is useful since the researchers can easily evaluate a grounded hypothesis. Moreover, the authors tried to increase the validity of the researcher by performing four transects. However, the article does not state how the research sampled those locations. Therefore, it is essential for the authors to use random sampling to minimize biases. Notably, the article provides the prevailing weather conditions when the data was collected. For example, they provided data on wind speed, cloud cover, types of clouds and humidity. The authors have presented the results of the article accurately. For instance, they have included the graphs, pictures, and narrative for each transect. In particular, the narrative gives the number of species per transect, whereas the graph depicts the distribution of the dominant species. The researchers arranged their graph adequately to enable easy understanding. It is possible to see the population of plant species counted in the line transects. It is essential to note that the authors have accurately labeled the graphs for easy interpretation. For example, in transect one results, the x- and y-axis represent transect boxes and the number of dominant species respectively. Therefore, they were keen on data presentation. Furthermore, it is possible to compare the effects of trails on different species since the author has included every species in some paragraph. For instance, the least affected species presented in transect two result is the Christmas fern according to the graph. Generally speaking, the results are well sectioned, organized and reported objectively. However, the use if pictures to reveal the effect of invasive species near the rails is inadequate since they only show the visual results. A scientific method can provide more reliable results to determine the effect of invasive species on the understory plant communities. The researcher achieved the objective of this study. The results indicate that the invasive plant species are found in the transect 2 (Stinging nettle), transect 3 (Multiflora rose and Japanese Honeysuckle) and transect 4 (Bouteloua). It shows that the trails have a significant effect on the understory plant communities found in Ridley Creek State Park. Possibly, the seeds of the invasive species may have been deposited in the trails by the human or animals. The invasive species introduced along the trails and habitat fragmentation due to animal or human activities reduce biodiversity. The researchers provide the future direction and research. For instance, future research should involve the use of more belt transects to enable larger data collections in more randomized locations. It is worth to note that the methods of data collection, which the authors used, complied with the ethical standards. The research is import since it provides an insight on how trails affect the understory plant species in the Ridley Creek State Park. The results obtained represent the conditions in other parks and forests having trails.
Effects of Trout Stocking on Biodiversity in Taylor Arboretum & Ridley Creek State Park, PA. Synopsis Article review This research was done to determine how trout stocking affects biodiversity in Ridley Creek State Park and Taylor arboretum. The research has two questions, which the authors utilized to achieve the stated objective of the study. First, whether or not trout stocking results in a significant difference in the invertebrate communities’ biodiversity in the Ridley Creek State Park (RCSP). Second, whether or not the trout stocking causes loss of macro invertebrates in the Creek. Therefore, the major issue in this research is to determine if trout stocking causes significant affect the invertebrate species in RCSP and Taylor arboretum. There are concerns that park officials only value the profit they obtain from license fee when they allow fishermen to stock trout into the water but they neglect the effect of trout on the invertebrate diversity in the water. The previous studies indicate that trout stocking has minimal impacts on the biodiversity of invertebrates in the streams. Consequently, the biodiversity of invertebrates will have minimal changes or remain unchanged after trout stocking. Therefore, the researchers were motivated to study the effect of trout stocking on the invertebrate biodiversity. A significant difference in the biodiversity of invertebrate after and before trout introduction or stocking shows that practice has a substantial effect and the park officials should consider it. As such, this study will assist the park officials to decide whether or not to continue the practice of trout introduction. It worth to note that several previous studies focused on the examination of effects of trout stocking in forced sympatry, in artificial stream settings or microhabitat scale, and not in natural settings. Therefore, this study is a significant contribution to previous research since it is done in natural settings. Editorial The authors effectively made various parts of the article to be clear to readers. The title of the article is appropriate and provides an idea about the focus of this study. The readers will know that the research seeks to determine the effect of trout stocking on the biodiversity of the invertebrates. Also, the title shows the area of the study. The introduction of the article indicates the purpose of the study. It shows that the goal of this study is to examine how stocking of trout affects the invertebrate community by conducting a comparison of the biodiversity of invertebrate species after and before trout stocking. It is worth to note that the paper lacks an abstract. An abstract is essential in providing a summary of an article. The authors cited pertinent articles, which deal with the study of the effect of stocked trout on invertebrates. However, they only cited two articles, which might be inadequate for this study. This study hypothesized that stocking of trout has a small effect on the invertebrate organisms in the streams. Therefore, the stocking of trout in the streams will result in a minimum change of macro invertebrates’ biodiversity. The hypothesis is based on already conducted research. Therefore, the hypothesis is appropriate for the study. The methods used in the study are appropriate. The researchers clearly outlined the study procedures used. Looking for macro invertebrate using kick net ensures adequate collection of the sample. However, the researchers lifted rocks after trout stocking and did not lift rocks before trout stocking thus reducing the sample size. The researchers did not reveal the sampling methods used in thus research. The appropriate sampling techniques assist in obtaining representative samples thus avoiding biases in data collection. The materials used effectively assisted in the preparation of the sample. For instance, 91% isopropyl alcohol assisted in killing the sample and acrylic helps prevent the samples from shrinking. It is possible for the readers to know the variables being measured in this research. Ideally, the method of calculating the invertebrate diversity provides accurate diversity number. Therefore, the results obtained in this study support the hypothesis of the researchers. The results obtained show the invertebrate species collected during the study. Impressively, the authors compare the invertebrates’ diversity in 1997 when the collection of invertebrate organisms started in RCSP with the subsequent years till 2018 during this study. The graphs show biodiversity of invertebrates between 1997 and 2018 for easy comparison of the trends. The authors adequately labeled the graph thus making it easier for the readers to comprehend it. Notably, the researchers effectively used tables to show the results. However, they failed to label the tables clearly, and the values inside the table thus may confuse some readers. Notably, the data of some years such as that from 2012 to 2016 is not revealed in the tables and graph. The authors draw their conclusions after completing the research. They concluded that the biodiversity did not show a large difference over the two decades. Therefore, their statistical analysis clearly shows that trout stocking does not significantly affect the biodiversity of invertebrates in the streams. The authors noticed the variation of various species in Taylor arboretum and Ridley Creek State Park. For instance, the number of flatworms is higher in 2010 and 2011 as compared to other years. The use of two study areas including Ridley Creek State Park and Taylor arboretum significantly increased the accuracy and reliability of the study as compared to the used of one area of study. The authors effectively used the pictures to show the collection of data, and the sample obtained. The readers can easily know the invertebrate organisms or species collected in this study after viewing the pictures provided. Also, the maps are essential in giving the readers an insight on the study areas used in this research. The researchers provided a clear explanation of the future directions of this research. For instance, the future studies should involve observing and recording the number of invertebrate species in other streams or creeks where the practice of trout introduction occurs. The future direction of this research should consider examining the effect of trout stocking on single species of invertebrates found on the streams since this practice may affect specific invertebrate species but not others. The study is important since it examines the effect of trout stocking on invertebrates communities in natural settings as compared with previous studies, which used artificial stream settings or microhabitat scale. The result of this study is useful in determining if the park official should consider stopping the practice of stocking trout in the streams. The results obtained confirm the accuracy of previous studies, which stated that trout stocking has minimal impact on the invertebrate communities in the streams. Therefore, the practice can continue in the creeks/streams.
Trail Effects in Understory Plant Communities in Ridley Creek State Park By: Carly Shenold, Devin Hanaoka, Maria Alvarez & Serena Turco Introduction ● ● ● Trails give humans access to forests and other natural areas Trails allow large animals to pass through more easily Previous studies have found increases in nonnative/invasive species near trails ○ ○ ○ ○ ● Trails create corridors for invasive species humans/animals carry seeds from other areas humans/animals disturb species that would grow on the trail otherwise Disturbance can change the composition of the soil and soil type Habitat fragmentation reduces biodiversity Red- transect 1 (44º NE) ● ● 39º 56’ 42” N 75º 25’ 19” E Blue- transect 2 (359º N) ● ● 39º 56’ 49” N 75º 23’ 34” W Green- transect 3 (160º E) ● ● 39º 56’ 45” N 75º 25’ 49” W Yellow- transect 4 (26º NE) ● ● 39º 56’ 46” N 75º 25’ 18” W Questions Do man made trails have an effect on diversity and the number of plant species? Do trails affect the distribution of plants? Methods In order to determine the effects of trails on the diversity and distribution of plants, belt transects were used. A belt transect is a distance of 8 meters measured from the edge of the trail and inwards. Four square meter boxes were made, within the 8 meters, one meter apart starting directly at the edge of the trail. After all the boxes were made, the types and amount of plant species in each box were determined. Four different transects were chosen based on how heavily trafficked they were (Transect 1: 39º 56’ 42” N, 75º 25’ 19” E; Transect 2: 39º 56’ 49” N, 75º 23’ 34” W; Transect 3: 39º 56’ 45” N, 75º 25’ 49” W; Transect 4: 39º 56’ 46” N, 75º 25’ 18” W) . Once the trail was determined, the belt transect was performed to quantitatively determine the type and the amount of plants in that transect. After the data for the four transects was collected, it was put into line graphs to create a visual between each box for each transect. To determine the impact of invasive species near trails, a qualitative perspective was used. Four sites were selected off of the yellow trail at Ridley Creek State Park. Pictures were taken of the four different sites that were noticeably affected by invasive species. After the pictures were taken, they were examined and used as visual results. Quantitative Results Transect 1 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Belt 1: 1:00pm Done off of dirt trail Far from Water Up slope from road Slope: 44º NE, 39º 56’ 42” N, 75º 25’ 19” E Mostly Cloudy 78º F Wind 3 mph S Humidity 77% Cloud Cover 75% ○ Cloud type: cumulus Transect 1 Cont’d Transect 1 Results Box 1: ● 93 Christmas Fern ● 6 Ground Clover Box 2: ● 63 Christmas Fern Box 3: ● 2 Cherry Tree ● 32 Christmas Fern Box 4: ● 49 Christmas Fern ● 2 Ground Clover The graph above depicts the amount of each individual dominant plant specie(s) found in each box taken from the belt transect off of transect 1 ● ● ● ● Location: far from water, downward slope, moderate canopy coverage # of Species: 3 Invasive Species: 0 Dominant species: ○ ● ● ● ● Christmas fern Box 1: Christmas fern had the highest population (93) Box 2: Christmas fern had the highest population (63) Box 3:Christmas fern had the highest population (32) Box 4 : Christmas fern had the highest population (49) The graph above depicts the amount of each individual plant specie(s) found in each box taken from the belt transect off of transect 1 Transect 2 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Belt 2: 1:22 pm Right off pavement Close to Water Sparse under brush Rocks with lichen and bryophyte Slope: 359º N, 39º 56’ 49” N, 75º 23’ 34” W Mostly Cloudy 78º F Wind 3 mph S Humidity 77% Cloud Cover 95% ○ Cloud type: cumulus (insert canopy pic) Transect 2 Cont’d Transect 2 Results Box 1: ● 8 Stinging Nettle ● 3 Red Maple Sapling ● 2 Unknown Eater Box 2: ● 34 Christmas Fern ● 7 Cinnamon Fern Box 3: ● 1 Birch Tree ● 5 Christmas Fern ● 11 Other Fern Box 4: ● 3 Other Fern ● 2 Ground Clover The graph to the left depicts the amount of each individual dominant plant specie(s) found in each box taken from the belt transect off of Transect 2 ● ● ● Location: close to water, rocky, thick canopy coverage # of Species: 7 Invasive Species: ○ ● Dominant species: ○ ○ ● ● ● ● Stinging nettle Christmas fern Cinnamon fern Box 1: Stinging nettle had the highest population (8) Box 2: Christmas fern had the highest population (34) Box 3:Cinnamon fern had the highest population (11) Box 4 : Cinnamon fern had the highest population (3) The graph above depicts the amount of each individual plant specie(s) found in each box taken from the belt transect off of transect 2 Transect 3 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Belt 3: 1:40 pm Done off of dirt trail Away from pavement/houses Up hill from small stream Far from main creek Thick understory Slope: 160º E, 39º 56’ 45” N, 75º 25’ 49” W Mostly Cloudy 78º F Wind 3 mph S Humidity 73% Cloud Cover 65% ○ Cloud type: cumulus (insert canopy pic) Transect 3 Cont’d Transect 3 Results Box 1: ● 12 Honeysuckle ● 15 Ground Clover Box 2: ● 4 Ground Clover ● 10 Multiflora Rose ● 7 Honeysuckle Box 3: ● 13 Ground Clover ● 7 Multiflora Rose ● 5 Honeysuckle Box 4: ● 31 Honeysuckle ● 14 Ground Clover ● 1 Red maple The graph above depicts the amount of each individual invasive plant species found in each box taken from the belt transect off of Transect 3 ● ● ● Location: far from water, uphill, thicker understory than canopy coverage # of Species:4 Invasive Species: ○ ○ ● ● ● ● Multiflora rose Japanese Honeysuckle Box 1: Ground clover had the highest population (15) Box 2: Multiflora rose had the highest population (10) Box 3:Ground clover had the highest population (13) Box 4 : Honeysuckle had the highest population (31) The graph above depicts the amount of each individual plant specie(s) found in each box taken from the belt transect off of Trail 3 Transect 4 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Belt 4: 2:03 pm Between pavement and main creek Heavily used trail Little to no brush for a while Slope: 26º NE, 39º 56’ 46” N, 75º 25’ 18” W Mostly Cloudy 78º F Wind 3 mph S Humidity 73% Cloud Cover 70% ○ Cloud type: cumulus Transect 4 Results Box 1: ● 7 Grass Box 2: ● 89 Bouteloua Box 3: ● 2 5’’ Diameter Patch Bouteloua ● 2 2’’ Diameter Patch Bouteloua ● 33 Polygonum Box 4: ● 3 Holly Bushes The graph above depicts the amount of each individual invasive plant specie(s) found in each box taken from the belt transect off of Transect 4 ● ● ● Location: close to water, close to pavement, high trafficked area, no canopy coverage # of Species:7 Invasive Species: ○ ● ● ● ● Bouteloua Box 1: “Grass” had the highest population (7) Box 2: Bouteloua had the highest population (89) Box 3:Polygonum had the highest population (200+) Box 4 : Holly bush had the highest population (3) The graph above depicts the amount of each individual plant species found in each box taken from the belt transect off of Transect 4 Qualitative Results Discussion/Future Directions In order to more accurately analyze trail effects, our quantitative data needs to have more correlation with our qualitative data. In short, our quantitative data on transect belts was not representative of the phenomenon we saw in or around the trails regarding invasive/non-invasive species interactions as a result of trail effects. However, the qualitative data shows clearly the trail effects we attempted to study. Future directions for this study would include a larger data collection (more belt transects) in which the locations are more randomized. Also, our method of data collection could be modified to allow us to gain a better perspective of the bigger picture. These modifications mainly pertain to selection of transect sites. Ideally, transect sites should contain a wide range of physical characteristics such as: slope, elevation, soil content, water, degrees of damage, and remeasurability, etc. Incorporating these differences in physical characteristics will provide more accurate sampling. Sources 1. Trail Transect: A Method for Documenting Trail Changes https://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/publications/research_papers/pdfs/scanned/OCR/ne_rp3 89.pdf 2. Alien Flora in Grasslands Adjacent to Road and Trail Corridors in Glacier National Park, Montana (U.S.A.) TYSER, R. W. and WORLEY, C. A. (1992), Alien Flora in Grasslands Adjacent to Road and Trail Corridors in Glacier National Park, Montana (U.S.A.). Conservation Biology, 6: 253-262.
Effects of Trout Stocking on Biodiversity in Taylor Arboretum & Ridley Creek State Park, PA Angelica Borja, Inesha Ellisa, Brittney Hickman, Adenike Salako, Georgianna Williams Introduction Trout stocking Brown trout (Salmo trutta) are commonly stocked in streams and rivers worldwide to enhance recreational fisheries, but this practice can adversely impact other organisms in these ecosystems (Alexiades and Kraft, 2016). In other words, park officials allow fisherman to dump an abundance of trout into the water in order to profit from their license fees, but are neglecting the effects trout have on the biodiversity of invertebrates in the water. The goal of our research is to study the effects of trout stocking on the invertebrate community in the the Ridley Creek State Park streams by comparing the biodiversity of invertebrate organisms before and after trout stocking. Trout stocking began in 2008, and a collection of invertebrate organisms in Ridley Creek State Park are recorded from 1997-present. Introduction Trout Stocking Results from studies examining the ecological impacts of stocked or introduced trout in streams ranged from finding little or no effect to observing large impacts on invertebrate abundances, biomass, or density. Many studies examine effects in microhabitat scale, in artificial stream settings, or forced sympatry, and not in natural settings (Fausch, 1998). We are completing this study to determine whether there are significant differences between the invertebrate communities before and after trout stocking. If there are significant differences, we can conclude that trout stocking is affecting the biodiversity of invertebrates in the water and parks should reconsider this practice. Questions 1. Is there a significant difference in the biodiversity of invertebrate communities in the Ridley Creek State Park before and after trout stocking? 2. Is there a loss of macroinvertebrates in the creek before and after trout stocking? Hypothesis Based on research, trout stocking has small effects on invertebrate communities in the streams; therefore, we hypothesize that after trout stocking the biodiversity of the macroinvertebrates will stay the same and or have minimum changes, the survival rate of juvenile invertebrates will decrease. Google Map of Ridley Creek Google Map of Taylor Arboretum Materials & Methods ● Taylor Arboretum ○ ● Looked for macroinvertebrate using a kick net ○ Before trout stocking: did not lift the rocks so sample collected was small ○ After trout stocking: lift rocks up Materials & Methods Taylor Arboretum Materials & Methods ● Ridley Creek State Park ● Looked for macroinvertebrate using a kick net ○ Before trout stocking: did not lift the rocks so sample collected was small ○ After trout stocking: lift rocks up Materials & Methods Ridley Creek State Park Materials & Methods Materials & Methods ● Used 91% isopropyl alcohol to kill the collected samples ○ Drain water from the jar sample ○ Added enough alcohol to the bowl ○ Waits for species to go to sleep(forever) ● Separated the samples on slides using a forceps ○ Added acrylic on the slide (shrinks without it ) Materials & Methods Biodiversity Calculation ● Calculated the percent of each organism by dividing the number of individuals by the total number collected ● Then the percent of each organism was taken and multiplied by LN of its percent ● H’ was then found by taking the sum of all the percent LN(Percent) for each organism and multiplying it by -1 ● Finally, the H’ of that data collection was taken and used to find the EXP(H’) giving us the biodiversity number Results Conclusion ● The Statistical analysis did not show large differences between the biodiversity over the past 20 years ● Larger numbers of “Poor” water organisms like flatworms and nematodes have been found in the 2018, 2017, 2011, and 2010 data compared to the 1997 data ● Less organisms such as Mayfly larva, Crayfish, Stonefly Larvae, Odonata Larvae occur in RCSP and Taylor Future Directions ● Continue collecting data in upcoming years in order to further support our claim ● Observe and record number of invertebrate organisms in other creeks/streams in which trout stocking also occurs ● Observe how temperature and rainfall affect the type and number of invertebrates in the water References Alexander V. Alexiades & Clifford E. Kraft (2017) Effects of stocked trout on stream invertebrate communities, Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 32:1, 95-102, Fausch KD. 1998. Interspecific competition and juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar): on testing effects and evaluating the evidence across scales. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 55:218–231
Widener University Journal of Undergraduate Ecological Research Bruce W. Grant, Editor Kirkbride Hall, K414 610-499-4017 610-316-2765 bwgrant@widener.edu Guidelines for Reviews Congratulations! You have been selected to review two manuscripts for possible publication in the Widener University Journal of Undergraduate Ecological Research, Volume 22, Number 1, November 2018. Your task is to formally review these manuscripts using the format below. The authors will then receive your comments but not your name, thus your review will be anonymous. With that in mind, feel free to really tell the groups of co-authors what you thought of their papers with the goal of HELPING THEM TO IMPROVE !!! You must work alone for this part of the lab, and your individual grade will depend upon how thoroughly and constructively you criticized the two manuscripts you were assigned. Each of your reviews should have two parts: USE THE FORMAT for FILE NAMES DESCRIBED BELOW!! Firstly, goto the wiki page and download the 2 papers (as pptx files) you are assigned to review. Save each file with your reviewer code (note that you have a different code specific to each paper) and your last name as the first two words in the newly saved file names (I will remove your name from these file titles before I forward your comments back to the authors). (Part 1) LINE EDITING: open the manuscript file and PUT YOUR REVIEWER ID CODE ON the title slide in the upper left IN RED – NOT YOUR NAME. Then, as you read this file, TYPE DIRECTLY IN RED OR PINK TEXT FONT any spelling or grammar corrections, and any minor text change suggestions, or any specific minor issues they should address etc, that you see need to be made as you go through each slide. *** Please DO NOT USE the “track changes” setting or options When your markings and in-line editings are completed, email this file directly to me — NOT to the authors. (pay attention to the convention for file names above.) (Part 2) REVIEW: please write a minimum of 2 page (single spaced, 12 point, 1” margins) word processed review of the ms, PUT YOUR REVIEWER ID CODE ON PAGE 1 AT LEFT IN RED – NOT YOUR NAME. Save this file with the file name “YourCode LastName Review.doc” and email to me when done. Your REVIEW should be in 2 parts: a. Compose a brief synopsis of the manuscript (minimum ½ page single spaced) completely lacking in any and all editorializing by you. The purpose of this part is for you to help the authors clarify their paper. Your synopsis should start by stating the main research question(s), major issue(s), critical concern(s), etc., whatever, that motivated this study. State IN YOUR WORDS what the authors said they did in their study and what they said their data meant. Use your own writing and DO NOT QUOTE OR PLAGIARIZE PASSAGES FROM THE PAPER. If you must use jargon from the paper, you must define it at first usage. Avoid listing of trivial methodological detail. Summarize their methods as needed. Devote at least a short paragraph to each of the sections in their paper. b. Compose a brief editorial (minimum of 1.5 pages single spaced, 12 point, 1” margins) on what you thought of their study. Closely examine the notes I presented in class on how to write a Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Literature Cited sections to make sure the authors of your paper followed the format. When you refer to specific places in the ms, cite the slide number, table, figure, paragraph, and other info pertaining to your comment (you can also add a comment coding system and then write this code in the ms in). Your review should also address the greater context of this study, i.e. why is this study important and what does it mean? Also, think about the comments and discussion raised during the symposium and follow up on some of issues – if you agree with them. Points you might also mention include: - why is the BIG QUESTION of this study interesting? - what is the significance of the greater context of this study? - how well do you think they designed their study? - how clearly do their data actually support their interpretations? You should cite specific examples from the paper in your editorial and not just assert the data did or did not support their conclusions. - are there are other interpretations the authors did not consider? - are the future directions thoughtful and complete? What’s next? What data or other studies could be conducted – do you have anything to add? Note: this activity is worth 50 points per review (100 in total). My assessment of your review will depend upon how HELPFUL you are to your peers for their revisions. The point breakdown will be: (1) line editing 15 points, (2) synopsis 15 points, and (3) critique 20 points.

Tutor Answer

Professor_Markins
School: Boston College

I made this totally different fro...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Top quality work from this guy! I'll be back!

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors