Category Archives: Peer Review

My Peer Review

Peer review from Stephen Lui for my definitions document

Hi Barbra,
I reviewed your assignment of definition. Good job on the definition. Your definitions are clear and neat. However, I think the causes of nocturnal bruxism is a little bit lacking. With a more detailed causes would give the readers a clearer idea on the term.

Name of the Reviewer: Steven Lui

Author’s Name: Barbra Dobes

Title of the Expanded Definition: Nocturnal Bruxism

Initial Impressions:  After my first time reading the article, I understand most of the material. The only thing I do not understand is in the picture of bruxism, the way of the teeth clenching up and down was a little bit confusing.

Purpose: The purpose of the definition was clearly and neatly defined. All parts of the documents are closely related to the intended purpose. However, more details for the causes of nocturnal bruxism will provide a greater insight for the readers.

Audience:  As an audience without any dental knowledge, I found myself very easy to understand what nocturnal bruxism. In the sentence definition, the whole nocturnal bruxism process is clearly explained with simple and non-specific words. Jargon was not used in the article, so It is easier for audience without any dental knowledge to understand the article.

Organization: For the structure of the document, the introduction clearly described the reason of writing the definition of the term. The body includes multiple definition for the term. Adding a conclusion for the term might be helpful to explain the term to audience. One of the visual is a little bit confusing as the picture did not clearly illustrate how the clenching of the teeth actually works. Methods of expansion are used in the document, the causation of nocturnal bruxism, the meaning the two words, what can be done afterwards and the results of nocturnal bruxism are used as the expansion of the definition.

Addition comments: I think a little bit more in depth information for the causes of nocturnal bruxism would greatly help improving the documents. The results of nocturnal bruxism is the most effective element of this document, it is because bullet point of the result are clear and easy to understand. The word choice used are simple and the visual helped the audience to understand the whole term.

301 ASSGN 1-3 definitions first draft  

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