Name of the Reviewer: Barbara Dobes
Author’s Name: Kevin Kang
Title of the Expanded Definition: Restriction Endonuclease
Hi Kevin,
Thank you for the document defining restriction endonuclease. This very specific term definitely requires defining as most novice readers would not have exposure to such complex biological terminology.
Initial Impressions
The purpose of this peer review is to assist you in creating a great document. After reading through your definitions, it is evident that you have provided a lot of information in an easy to follow layout. Some of your chosen wording seems too complex so I have provided some suggestions to help you simplify the language.
Comments about Purpose
You have succeeded in writing a very informative document with a clear focus on the subject chosen.
Comments about Audience
Some of your chosen wording and phrases may be too complex for the novice reader.
Recommended Changes
In the parenthetical definition you use the word “cleave” and “sequences.” A novice reader may be challenged by these words so I would recommend using a synonym for cleave such as cut or break, and another synonym for sequences such as chain or order.
The brief history of endonuclease seems to use language that is too complex for the target audience. For example, in paragraph 4 sentence 1 it states that the 2 types of endonucleases are attributed to research in bacteria. I’m not really sure what that means. So are you able to think of a simpler way to express this such as “was the result of” or “came out of”. In sentence 3 there is reference to mapping a virus and losing biological activity. This appears to be very specific biology language and I am not really sure that this helps to promote the understanding of the definition of restriction endonucleases. I believe that for individuals with a biology background this is very straightforward, but for someone from a different discipline it makes it very difficult to understand. You have chosen a very difficult concept to define.
Jargon use in the definition
There has been the inclusion of some jargon that detracts from the readability of your document. I would recommend that you try using simpler terminology in your expanded definition and avoiding complex terminology. For example you mention palindromic DNA, recombinant DNA and transfect E. Coli. These are very specific words for a specialized area of study and not commonly understood by the novice reader. Are you able to adopt a different approach for the expanded definition so that you don’t have to include this specialized language. For example, you have included a lot of detail about the visual representation/image, but does it really enhance the understanding for the reader?
Organization
The definitions document is well laid out and has good flow. The image placement in the middle of the definition helps to break-up the paragraphs giving the document a more user friendly feel.
References
The references do not appear to be in MLA or APA style. I recommend that you consult Purdue OWL on the internet. I have found this website very helpful for APA style of referencing and in text citations.
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/2/
I commend you for the solid start to this project. With some corrections and modifications you will create a great document, I trust that these recommendations will inspire and assist you. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Barbara