Peer Review 1

Sarah Ahart

Peer Review and Commentary—Science Feature

The Lead:

How does the lead pull the reader in and entice her to read on?  Is it surprising, or are claims made that are common knowledge (note: the reader shouldn’t be able to say, ‘well duh.’)?  Is it effective?  Can it be made more effective?  (think details, human drama, evocative language—why do/don’t you want to read on?)

Beautiful introduction! Like really well constructed. It is interesting, introduces the subject, and new information to me. VERY effective at drawing in attention.

Does the lead give a clear indication of what the story will be about, or rely on mystery, or both?  Would more of a focus be helpful?  Is the reader aware of the importance of a topic—why it matters and is worth learning about?  Adversely, if for more entertainment purposes, is the topic engaging enough to compel reading?

It clearly introduces the topic in a relaxed manner through the telling of a story. The personal human element is clear very early on in the paper.

Organization:

Consider how the story is structured.  Chronological, thematic, chapter/section-based, inquiry-driven?  Is it effective?  Be specific—if a paragraph doesn’t transition well into the next, mention it and provide suggestions for improvement.

The feature starts out with the basics by defining what synestisia really is in a relatable way It then dives into exploring each face in focus as well as the historical and current understandings. If you need to up your word count, it would be nice to hear more implications. Dig deeper into why all of this really matters and try to evoke some emotion from the reader. I also really like your transitions where you sum up the last paragraph and start a new one.

Is each paragraph well focused, or are several ideas competing for attention?  How can better focus be achieved?

Each paragraph focuses on one idea! Great! It would be nice to see some more focus and depth into each of the ideas though. While you’re already getting technical and specific, look into some of the impacts. Relate to other conditions maybe?

Are there certain points (factual or narrative based) that require more development?  Are you, the reader, unclear at certain points?  Are any ideas superfluous or distracting?

Your bases are covered and you have all the development needed to produce a good paper. Everything is clearly explained. It would be nice to hear a bit more about the impact that this has on the person and people around them. Is this just something they have to deal with? Why? Why should I care about this topic?

Balance of human interest and information.  Point out sections that become too bogged down in dry facts or heavily specialized concepts.  Adversely, find sections that rely on narrative without giving the reader proper background information and factual points of reference.

Most of the paper includes the human element from early in the paper. I really like how the information just flows seamlessly from paragraph to paragraph and the human element just stays constant. I guess it helps that this is a human condition…

Are claims backed up by examples, evidence, research?  Are sensory details employed effectively?  Are abstractions made concrete through use of examples and details?

Everything seems to be clearly cited and explained. Try bringing in more sensory clues to help the audience relate physically and emotionally to the paper. I think this is a really cool topic and the paper could really impact the audience.

How is the story concluded?  Does it wrap up the topic neatly and provide closure?  Does it ask bigger questions or compel the reader to search for more?  Are you left wanting more (and is this a good thing)?  Is it effective?

So you’re sort of missing a conclusion, but you already know that… For your conclusion, I would make it very human focused, somewhat as a mirror on your introduction. Tie up the lose ends and make your you really make clear what this really is. Think big picture, worldly implications.

Voice and Audience

Characterize the story’s voice and tone?  Is it suitable for the topic?  Is it engaging?  Is it consistent throughout the piece?  If first person POV is used, is this effective or jarring (remember, most story’s should rely on the strength of the topic for engagement, not the evidence of authorial intrusion).

Informal tone which really works in this human paper. The writing was great and vey engaging. Its tone remained consistent and facts were easily integrated. I really liked the interview point of view. Expand that into the paper and conclusion more, please.

Try to characterize the audience.  What venue (publication) do you think this story suits?  Why?  Does the author effectively address this audience (too dumbed-down or sensational, too dry and esoteric)?

This belongs in a psychology research journal because I feel this topic is more common than one thinks and there isn’t much awareness about it. The audience is addressed well. Maybe add more fact and sciency stuff.

Mechanics

Mark any ineffective or over-used word/phrase choices.  Mark any repetitive sentence structures.  Offer advice on vocabulary, syntax, and sentence structure. Mark other grammar issues and typos.

None that I saw.

Sarah, really amazing and interesting paper! Thank you so much for letting me read it!