To: Brenda Martinez
From: Usman Zahoor
Date: October 16, 2019
Subject: Peer Review of research proposal for “Reduction of aerosol bacteria in clinical dental hygiene practice”
Hi Brenda,
Here is my peer review of your research proposal for reducing aerosol bacteria in clinical dental hygiene practices. This includes my overall impressions on your proposal, as well as some minor suggestions that I hope you will find helpful.
First Impressions: This is such an interesting topic and so relevant, considering that it’s cold and flu season. Your research proposal was extremely thorough and well explained; so much so that I did not have re-read it for clarity. I have only a few suggestions, which I have outlined below and in the comments section.
Location of study and target audience: You conveyed this information clearly. Although, I do feel that it could have been done in one or two sentences less.
Introduction: You provided the perfect amount of background information on the topic of study. Just enough that I could understand the proposal, but not too much that I got lost in jargon, I can definitely appreciate that. I like that you’re studying something that impacts you and the rest of the dental team directly, rather than focusing on patients. Not enough time and consideration is spent on actual health care providers.
Statement of problem: This was done very well. I like how you pointed out exactly who is being affected and why.
Proposed solution: I like how you provided an example of what an oral antiseptic rinse is and how it solves the problem. I also appreciated how you linked the problem directly to relatable issues (cold/flu season).
Scope: This section proposed some very interesting and relevant questions to the problem you’re addressing. I like how you are starting with the basics (does every dental hygienist give preprocedural rinses?) to whether they understand the importance of it.
Methods: I thought this section was particularly well done. You were very specific in your approach, providing exact time frames and how many surveys you would be conducting. I thought this added an extra layer of credibility.
Qualifications: You are clearly extremely qualified for this. Not only do you actually practice within the field of study, but you continually educate yourself on the specific topic of infection control and personal protection. The amount of detail in this section was a terrific way to back up your report.
Organization:
- Overall, you included the perfect amount of headings. They were bolded, which made reviewing your report very easy.
- I thought it was interesting how you arranged your “Introduction” section after the “Location of Study and Intended Audience” section. Personally, I would have switched the two as I usually consider the Introduction section to be at the beginning.
Grammar:
- I do think the writing could be a bit more concise. For example, in your “Location of Study and Intended Audience” section, you reiterated that your study would be at the Richmond Dental Clinic. I felt it was a bit unnecessary to repeat.
- There were minor grammar errors, such as a missing comma after “Currently I am practicing dental hygiene…” in the first section. However, there was nothing major enough that it took away from the report.
General Statement: I really enjoyed reading your formal proposal. I really feel like health care providers are underappreciated. The problem you bring up is so important; if our health care providers fall ill, who takes care of the rest of us? It’s high time the health care system starts to care for its own. Overall, I thought the proposal was extremely well organized, detailed, and relevant.
https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl301-99a-2019wa/2019/10/15/formal-report-peer-review/
Leave a Reply