Respond to ALL questions under each highlighted section in yellow using the paper that was attached.
REVIEW FORM –
Your task is to help the author to write a better, more readable, and sound paper. For this you just need to be a good, attentive,
reader. Provided are specific aspects of writing to assess, and questions to answer that will help you to give the author feedback concerning particular conventions of scientific writing.
Authors: You will be evaluated on how well you respond to suggestions made by your reviewer(s).
To facilitate your evaluation, validate (1) that you check off any suggested changes on this document as you make them, and (2) that you also check off your changes on the draft manuscript.
There will be an example of how to respond to reviewer comments presented in N965.
Reviewers: Provide substantive feedback to the authors.
Your written comments will be reported to the authors
BOTH on this form, and as direct comments on the manuscript. The form should be used to provide more global, summary feedback. Comments on the manuscript should identify specific aspects of the paper that are strong or need improvement, and, should provide
specific, constructive suggestions for improving the paper.
Tips for reviewing a manuscript effectively:
Be kind and constructive. Be the kind of READER you would like to have read your draft.
Give concrete, specific, honest praise.
Example: “I like the way the data are presented in Figure 1. The important features are well labeled on the image and explained in the legend.”
Give concrete, specific, honest constructive feedback.
: “I find it difficult to follow the logical flow of information in this paragraph. A clear topic sentence is needed and then perhaps reordering the sentences…”
Ask lots of questions.
Example: Your introduction presents conflicting arguments, but I am unsure of your thesis. Can you explain what side of the controversy you defend?
· Imagine you’re having a dialog with the authors about the draft, especially as you identify concerns and consider possible solutions.
Mirror for clarity – Say: “It sounds like you are saying…. Is that right?”
Move from global to local issues. For example, start with overall organization of the paper, rather than wording of individual sentences.
Don’t try to “FIX” everything. DO NOT line‐edit the paper; let the authors deal with the nitty gritty in the context of their revisions.
· Avoid comments that start “You should…”
Write comments upon which the authors can act; provide enough information that the authors will know the basis for your concerns.
Allen, T. (2013). Peer Review Guidance: How Do You Write a Good Review? The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, 113(12), 918-920. doi:10.7556/jaoa.2013.070
Bates College Department of Biology. (2018). On‐line Biology Resources, Peer Review Form. Retrieved August 31, 2020, from
Hofmann, A. (2013). Writing in the Biological Sciences. Oxford University Press, New York. 290 pp.
As you read the paper, check off the items below if they are addressed and well done. Address those items that are missing or are not developed adequately. When possible, direct the authors’ attention to the specific location in the draft where the issue comes up.
Purpose and Interpretation
· Is the overall purpose of the paper clear?
· Does the interpretation of the literature support the overall problem of the proposal?
· Is there sufficient evidence to support the project purpose, objectives and conclusions?
· Is every paragraph and sentence in the paper relevant to the overall purpose?
· Are there portions of the text that could be omitted?
· Will the project advance our understanding of the question that is being investigated?
· Does it provide interesting and important insights into the topic of interest?
Overall Organization – Global Aspects of the manuscript
· Is the overall organization of the manuscript clear and effective?
· Are there disorganized parts?
· Could the clarity be improved by changes in the order of the paragraphs?
· Does the language seem appropriate for its intended audience?
· What does the title tell you about the work?
· Is the title strong? Does it effectively describe the paper?
· Does it state the overall background of the project and underscore the significance?
· Does the author provide adequate context for the topic?
· Does the introduction follow a funnel structure (general specific)?
· Is the purpose of the project and the clearly stated?
· Is the impact of the project to Nursing clearly stated?
· Will other readers find this project meaningful?
Literature Review and Synthesis:
· Is the review literature appropriate to support the project?
· Is there synthesis of the literature that demonstrates logical linkages among ideas to support the research?
· Does the literature review follow a funnel structure (general specific)?
· Js the chosen framework/model correctly and sufficiently described and cited?
· Does the chosen framework/model support the way in which the project was implemented?
· Is the link between the chosen framework/model and the project articulated well? For instance, if RE-AIM is chosen, what does E (effectiveness) look like for the project? Or, if the Ottawa Model of Research Use (OMRU) is chosen, how did the project conduct the first step in the model, which is Assess.
Purpose and Objectives:
· Are the purpose and objectives clearly stated?
· Are they logical based on the synthesis of the literature supporting the problem statement?
· Is the project design logical?
· Does it seem that the resources, personnel, technology, etc. will be able to be used to achieve the project purpose and objectives?
· Does the timeline of the project seem feasible?
Ethical Considerations/Protections of Human Subjects:
· Does the author note IRB status of the project?
· Are any potential risks or harms to participants addressed and is risk appropriately mitigated?
Project Site and Population:
· Did the author clearly describe the setting?
· Is it clear who is participating in the project and what the characteristics of the participant population are? (Demographics? Number of participants?)
· Are challenges in work flow/setting/resources noted?
· Does the author clearly articulate how they implemented the project/intervention/policy analysis?
· Could you replicate the author’s process to repeat the intervention or analysis based on what is presented in the report?
· Does the author describe how data was collected (pre-/post-?, tools/surveys?)
· Does the author describe the measures used? If a survey was used, is it attached as an appendix after the references?
· Does the author explain how they ensured their surveys or tools were valid or appropriate to the information they were trying to collect? (e.g. did they use validated tools? Did they have peers/mentors/faculty review their tools prior to data collection?)
· Does the author explain their process of data analysis?
· Does the author present their results in a logical, clear manner, without discussion or commentary on the meaning of the results?
· If there are tables/figures presented in the appendix, do the tables present information in a clear and logical manner?
· Does the author describe the sustainability plan for the project linking it to the implementation model if applicable and describe the dissemination plan for the results.
· Does the author adequately interpret their results?
· Is the discussion logical and do they address the purpose and objectives of their project?
· Are unexpected findings and limitations noted?
· Is the significance of the project stated in the last/concluding paragraph?
· Is the discussion ordered in a way that is logical, clear, and easy to follow?
References and Literature Cited:
· Have references been cited where needed?
· Are sources cited adequately, appropriately, and accurately?
· Are all the citations in the text listed in the reference section and vice-versa?
· Does the Appendix come after the references?
· Are the documents included in the Appendix clear and organized?
· Does the author refer to each of the documents in the Appendix within the text?
STYLE AND COMPOSITION: For any of these that are not yet adequately addressed, direct the authors to specific examples in the paper.
· Are the
transition sentences between sections and paragraphs logical?
· Are the
key words used correctly and consistently?
· Is the
scientific terminology used correctly and consistently?
· Are clear
topic sentences used for each paragraph?
· Do the sentences in each paragraph adhere to the topic of the paragraph?
word location within sentences been considered?
· Are there any
grammar, punctuation, or spelling problems?
· Is the style of the prose
· Are there any
· What other problems exist?
Suggestions for improvement:
OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROPOSAL
What are the proposal’s main strengths?
What are the proposal’s main weaknesses?
For each, suggest how the authors might go about improving them
Summary of suggestions for improving overall ORGANIZATION (structure, flow of information) of the proposal:
What specific recommendations can you make concerning the revision of this proposal?
Remember, the goal is to offer advice that will allow the authors to improve clarity and effectiveness of the proposal not only as a piece of writing, but also as an effective communication of merit of their study.
Organization and flow of information:
Paragraph level issues:
Sentence level issues, concision: