Assignment Peer review of the draft research proposal (5%) by pharmphresh32

VIEWS: 8 PAGES: 2

									Assignment: Peer review of the draft research proposal (5%)

Due date:      June 3, 2009

Proposal by: ______________________________            Review by: ________________________________

Purpose of the peer review:

   •   to give the proposal-writer a fresh perspective on his or her work
   •   to give the reviewer a chance to practice critical analysis and editing skills that will be useful in
       editing his or her own draft later on
   •   to generate as much constructive feedback as possible to assist in revising the proposal

General instructions:

   •   exchange papers with a classmate
   •   read the paper straight through, to get a sense of the whole
   •   read it again, taking time to answer the questions in the checklist below (and to comment as fully
       as possible on each question)
   •   also comment briefly on the paper’s overall strengths and weaknesses
   •   discuss your critique with your partner
   •   hand in this checklist and the edited paper at the beginning of next class (June 3)

Questions to consider:

Introduction/literature review

       ❏ Do the opening paragraphs orient you and give you a clear sense of what to expect from the
         rest of the proposal?

       ❏ Does the literature review cover all domains involved in the project (e.g. relevant to content,
         media, audience, visualization, and communication aims)?

       ❏ Is the literature review written in a logical sequence of complete paragraphs?

       ❏ Are the connections between the topics covered in the literature review made clear?

       ❏ Does the writer provide persuasive evidence to back up statements made in the literature
         review?

       ❏ Does the writer acknowledge, and provide counter-arguments to, contrary points of view?

       ❏ Does the literature review synthesize information from a range of sources, rather than simply
         summarizing a few articles?

       ❏ Does the literature review clearly identify the gaps that the research project is intended to fill?

       ❏ Does the literature review build a convincing case for the visual research question?

       ❏ Is the visual research question (or group of questions) clear? Specific? Does it pass the “so
         what?” test?

                                                                                                               1
MSC2004H – Research Methods, Biomedical Communications, 2009
Methods

          ❏ From the description of the project given in the Methods section, can you visualize what the
            end product will look like?

          ❏ Is the development of all aspects of the project described in detail? Are there gaps that you
            think could reasonably be filled at this point in the BMC program?

          ❏ Are the steps arranged in chronological order?

          ❏ Are the methods identified appropriate? That is, will the end product fulfill the objectives of
            the study and answer the research question(s)?

          ❏ Is the rationale for each procedure clear and reasonable?

          ❏ If the project is being evaluated, are all the variables and selection criteria for the study
            population identified?

          ❏ If the project is being evaluated, is there a clear timeline for recruitment, interaction with the
            study population, and data analysis?

          ❏ If the project is being evaluated, is the method of analyzing the data described?


Anticipated results
(Note: Complete this section if research question is hypothesis-driven, with delimited variables
susceptible to quantitative analysis)

          ❏ Are potential findings outlined? Would they answer the research question posed in the
            introduction?

Discussion

          ❏ Is the significance of the research project clearly identified?

          ❏ Is it clear that the research project will contribute something of value to the field of
            biomedical communications?

References

          ❏ Is every document cited in the proposal listed under References?

          ❏ Are the sources used authoritative and/or appropriate?

          ❏ Are all entries in the reference list accurately and consistently formatted according to The
            Chicago Manual of Style?

Overall

          ❏ If the writer still has unresolved questions noted in his or her proposal, can you make any
            helpful suggestions based on your own research thus far?

                                                                                                                 2
MSC2004H – Research Methods, Biomedical Communications, 2009

								
To top