Day: May 22, 2019

Critiquing other students’ articles is sometimes intimidating because I dont consider myself a fluent writer, especially for a writing intensive course or when it has to do with specific topics because I may not know a lot about that topic. It’s interesting to read other students’ articles though because it gives me an idea on how to make my paper better or I can also note to myself that may be something I did in my article and I should probably fix that so it’s easier for someone to read. After reading the articles I thought to myself I should do a little more research on the topics just so I can help review them better, give the other students a different point of view and ask questions they may have not thought about when they were writing their article. Anther interesting point I discovered is by reading the articles, I got an idea of who the author is, how they may think or their views on the topic. In a way, it’s kind of fun to read other students’ work because it not only lets me get to know them more, it gives me future ideas of what I could write about or topics to look further into to help understand before going into a career that I could face with this topic. Reviewing articles also helps me get an idea of the audience I want to capture because some words or sentences in my article may be to scientific and should lean more towards an audience like myself where they are in the Biohealth field, but not scientific experts. Overall, it was a good exercise to do, so I could go back to my paper and edit it to make it better.

Peer review is the process to determine the originality and authenticity of an article. Most reviewers are professionals in the scientific field that can validate the research behind the article to help confirm or deny the data, and can also say if the article is plagiarized or has already been written about. To have more peer reviews in an article can have it’s pros and cons, some pros are that it can validate the information in the article, that more data can contribute to the article to help prove a point or the research behind the article. Some cons are that not all peer reviews are scientifically valid, the research behind some peer reviews have not be proven or have had valid data to back up the hypothesis. Peer review has a process of a few steps, number one is to submit the rough draft of the article, the second step is for the reviewer to go over the article to validate the research for a solid base of the paper, this is kind of the editing process. Third step includes multiple reviewers going over the article, these reviewers are professionals in the field the article is based on, they also validate the research, what kind of citations have been used in the article, they also summarize their comments to the writer of the article. The fourth and fifth step kind of go hand-in-hand, the author of the article receives the comments from the reviewers, then makes changes on the article based off those comments. Once the author is finished with those changes, they can resubmit the article to go through the process over again to help finalize the article to make it valid and become a usable research article. Another con that comes with peer review is the time it takes to process an article before it can become official, while the research can be ground breaking or the beginning of an idea in the field, it can take years for the research to become valid. In that time someone else could already be doing the same research but be farther ahead, which could make the research someone else is working on invalid. A pro to this process is that it takes years which in the end validates the research data even more. The more peer reviewing of an article the better because it could mean the data has been looked at multiple times and made sure it’s correct and able to be supported for future research.