Annotated Bibliography Peer Review R.F.

Annotated Bibliography Peer Review R.F.:

Is the medical terminology too difficult to understand?

  • Livia: The medical terminology is a little difficult to understand. I'm familiar with some of it and able to understand the idea, but maybe provide an explanation of a few terms.
  • Beth: I am not very familiar with the terminology, but by using the context I believe I can decipher most of the meaning.

Is this in proper MLA format (I'm used to APA)?

  • Livia: It looks to be in the right format. If you haven't check with the Purdue OWL website to make sure.
  • Beth: I believe this is MLA format.

Are the summaries detailed enough that you understand what the source is all about? Are there details that the writer included that are unnecessary to the summary? What questions are you left with after reading the summaries?

  • Beth - The summaries are very detailed. I did not have any questions after reading them.
  • Livia: Your summaries are very detailed. I found some of the information included (particularly the details) of some of the experiments/studies to be a little much, but other than that it looks great!

Did the reviewer evaluate the sources using the CRAAP test? Do you see criteria based judgements about each letter (currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, purpose)? What is missing?

  • Beth - I did not see any information about the currency of the sources. Other than that all of the information was there.
  • Livia: I agree with Beth^ in that the currency of each source is not stated. Also, provide more detail about the authors. I know they're professionals, but say that to make it clear. In general, you seem to imply/state that the sources are credible with general observations (with I'm sure are true) but include the details of the sources.

Are the reflection sections complete enough that you understand how the writer responded to the sources? Could they include more information?

  • Beth - I believe the reflection sections are complete.
  • Livia: Your reflections are complete and seem to reflect your views on the topic.

Based on these three entries, in what direction do you think the writer's research is going?

  • Beth - I think the your research is going well and you know where you are going to go with your argument!
  • Livia: I believe you're leaning towards CT and other therapies that don't involve heavy medication, which is a valid argument that I'd like to know more about!

What questions are you left with after reading these entries?

  • Beth - I want to know which stance you will take on which treatment is better.
  • Livia: Your stance seems to be more towards CT and other therapies (rather than medication), but would you consider including articles about medication and how it helps some people? Then combat those arguments with your own.

What are these annotations weaknesses?

  • Beth - It seems that these sources are very in depth with medical terminology, which may be a drawback at times.
  • Livia: I agree with Beth^, but I think if you can simplify the terminology, they'll be great sources.

What are these annotations strengths?

  • Beth - All of these sources seem to be from very credible people and they all examine information you will need for your argument so they will be quite useful to you!
  • Livia: Your sources are obviously credible and relate to your topic. Your ability to use a wide-range vocabulary to summarize, analyze, and reflect is very impressing!
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License