Peer Review – Bioequivalent Medication

To: Aman Johal

From: Delsther James Edralin

Term: Bioequivalent Medication

This is a peer review of the three definitions of the technical term written by Aman Johal. The review will encompass an evaluation to assess the appropriateness of the definitions for their intended audience and highlight the strengths and potential improvements that could be made to ensure clarity and other relevant concerns.

Initial Impressions:

The document did well in making the reader understand the definition of the first reading. It introduced the assignment, the reading situation, and the term that was defined. Also, there was enough information for the parenthetical and sentence definitions to provide a basic understanding of bioequivalent medication. The expanded definitions, mainly on how bioequivalence is determined and the visual, were useful in providing more detail about bioequivalent medication. Additionally, the other strategies included were its history and examples of it, which were also strong points. Revisions aren’t entirely necessary other than correcting a few grammatical errors and typos, but the write-up has a few complex or compound sentences to be revised. Overall, it has enough information to be fully understood on the first read within the scenario and audience.

Purpose:

• The purpose of the definition is clearly defined as explaining the concept of bioequivalent medication to a non-technical audience.
• No parts of the document stray from the intended purpose.

Organization:

• Overall formatting is well-structured making the definitions concise and clear.
• The definitions are spaced well and are separated by headings and subheadings (for expanded definition).
• The choice of visual has a proper placement in between the expanded definitions and has correct citations.
• The references contain citations and are directly referenced in-text.

Expressions:

• The three definitions’ tone is consistent.
• The Parenthetical and Sentence definitions are straight to the point which makes it clear and easy to understand.
• The expanded definitions’ flow, from history to examples, is easy to follow, however, the examples portion might be too short while having multiple jargon without brief explanations for the intended audience.

Visual:          

• The choice of visual supports on understanding how to determine bioequivalence for the intended audience.
• The details of the table from the image are abstract enough for the audience to not be overwhelmed with the data visualization which can be more focused on the intended material to be learned from the term.
• The visual is in high-resolution.

Works Cited List:

• Appropriate amount and diverse references
• Correct citation with in-text citations

Grammar and Typos:

• There are some minor punctuation errors in the introduction, sentence definition, and expanded definitions.
• On the sentence definition:
  • “Bioequivalent medication is a medication that is chemically…”
• The expanded definitions also have the same typo from the first description of the term and the following:
  • “Bioequivalent medication is a medication that contains the same active…”
  • “… and create bioequivalent generic medication with the same medical ingredient and the same effect in the body…”
  • “… have the amount in a person’s body measured…”
• For the visual’s citation:
  • “Figure 1. Comparison of Brand and Generic medication in terms of the amount of medication…”

Final Impressions:

Thank you and good work on writing about the technical term clearly and consistently. I have not heard about the exact term through my past experiences, and you have provided a well-balanced explanation of the concept with elaborated definitions for your intended audience. Below are some suggestions for revising the write-up to strengthen the document:

• Rewrite some sentences the have issues with punctuation and typos.
• From the examples portion of the write-up, it could benefit in providing more details from the examples given as the terms from different medications might be too overly technical and jargon for the intended audience.
• Remove the extra spacing between the sentence definition and the expanded definitions.

Impressive work, it was an informative and enjoyable read. Please contact me if there are any questions. Thank you for your time in also reading the review.