JOURNAL REVIEW

SCI 402 ModernBiology

DIRECTIONS:
1. Deadline of Submission: July 21, 2023 – 5:00 PM
2. Submission format:
• pdf file: copy of annotated/commented/reviewed journal paper and your personal
review
• file name(annotated Journal): Section_Group#_SCI402_annotatedJournal.pdf
• file name(Journal Review): Section_Group#_SCI402_JournalReview.pdf
• review format: A4 size with normal margins (2.54 cm in all sides); Times New Roman
11 pt; 1.15 spacing

3. Journal paper to review:

• published on or after January 2018
• should come from an ISI-indexed journal, Elsevier, IIIE, Scientific American,
Popular Mechanics, Nature, Science, and Chemical and Engineering News
from the past 5 years.
• should contain annotations (e.g. your personal comments, highlights, etc); you can use
Adobe Reader or Foxit Reader to annotate your chosen paper in pdf
• should be screened first for approval

4. Peer Review
• Pdf file: Evaluation on each group member (100 being the highest)

5. Guide questions to answer

• Please provide detailed answers to the following guide questions. Your answers must
be traceable from the reviewed journal paper. Use specific figures, tables, equations,
sections, paragraphs, etc with page numbers to cite and explain your answers. Use
annotations (e.g. comments and highlights) to show me where in the reviewed paper
you get your answers. Your answers to guide questions will not be checked and considered
without the annotations in the journal paper. Guide questions (from Taylorand Francis
Publishing Group):
• Journal Review document includes the following (in order):
• Essay – type answer for the 25 GUIDE QUESTIONS
• Personal Review
• Summary of Annotated comments in the Journal File. (Include the person
contributed for that certain annotation.)
General questions on quality and value, suitability, and presentation

1. Is the submission original?

2. Is the research sound and evidenced?
3. Does it help to expand or further research in this subject area?
4. Does it significantly build on previous work?
5. Do you feel that the significance and potential impact of the paper is high or low?
6. Does the paper fit the scope of the journal?
7. Would the paper be of interest to the readership of the journal?
8. Should it be shortened and reconsidered in another form?
9. Is the writing style clear and appropriate to the readership?
10. Are all relevant accompanying data, citations, or references given by the author?
11. Are any tables or graphics clear to read and labeled appropriately?
12. Does the paper contain the appropriate referencing to provide adequate context for
the present work?

Questions on data assessment

13. Are the data selective? Why have the authors included some results and not others?
14. Are the data adequately explained in the text?
15. Is everything labeled clearly?
16. Are the conclusions drawn from the data reasonable?
17. Is there sufficient justification for using the particular statistical tools?
18. Have the authors explained why they chose certain values (e.g. quantities of
chemicals)?
19. Do the authors give enough information about the experiment that it could be
reproduced?
20. What equipment and materials/samples were used? It is important that the authors
be precise.
21. Do the authors use SI (or SI-derived) units?
22. Are the values reported with a sufficient degree of accuracy?
23. Is the paper easy to follow?

Detailed comments

24. Any unclear points in the paper that need further elaboration?
25. How can the author improve the clarity, succinctness, and overall quality of the
presentation of his/her paper?

PERSONAL REVIEW (write anything that YOU can say or Overall Critique from the paper)
Prepared by:

Engr. Arvie Marie M. Rosales

Instructor