higgs

So here it the critique of my paper from the editor (MY VERY FIRST PEER REVIEW!)

I'll try so repost the paper in a bit so you guys can read over the paper and see if you agree. In general I think it is a good review and I agree with a lot of the things that need to be changed. This will most likely be the check list for "how I spent my 4th of July weekend".

" Reviewer: Please enter Yes or No to each question

Does the paper title adequately describe the project? Yes
Is the paper in the proper format? Dont think so (headings not numbered)
Single Spaced? Yes
Not more than 8 pages? Yes
Is the paper full justified? Yes
Bold type used for title and paragraph headings only? Yes
Are figures and tables in correct format? Yes
Is the first page header in correct font (new times roman) and point size
(9). Yes
Paragraphs and subparagraphs in prescribed format? Yes
Does the abstract describe the project? (No personal Pronouns) Yes
Are the references adequate and in the prescribed format? No (wrong format)


Research

Is the paper logical and coherent? No
Is the hypothesis or research question or purpose of the project stated
clearly? Yes
Is the methodology clearly presented and adequate? Yes
Is the authors conclusion fully supported by the datas analysis? No
Does the student demonstrate an awareness of other research relevant to the
topic? Yes
Does the conclusion genuinely follow from that argument? No
Is the conclusion the result of genuine, relevant, and sufficient evidence,
intelligent and analyzed and fairly employed? Somewhat
Does this paper demonstrate the maturity and thoroughness that distinguish
genuine undergraduate research from a traditional research paper performed
as a course assignment, even a clever one? Yes

Reviewer Comments:

1. The topic of the paper is fascinating, and it is interesting to see how
the author used historical data from Spirit Lake to generate a theory on
why this organism occurred in the lake.

2. Because of how the paper is organized and sub-headed, the Introduction
is exceptionally brief, and does not properly introduce the subject and its
relevance. Consequently, the reader does not grasp this relevance until they
have read quite a bit of the paper. The Introduction needs to do its job
earlier.

3. Table 1 is not cited in the text, and there is no proper discussion of
its contents in the text. Also, sources and citations should be explicit in
the table I suggest a separate column that lists the source of the
source for each requirement/event.

4. The Discussion is too short and does not properly tie together all of
the issues that were listed and described in the paper. Some of the
information addressed in the Discussion (infection of various animal
species) might be better addressed in the Introduction, as it provides more
of a justification for the study. The Discussion should tie together the
issues raised in the text, and focus on the flagellate-empty habitat
hypothesis, which the title of the paper implies is the main idea.

5. The author has not used punctuation correctly, which has resulted in
many run on sentences. These need to be addressed and remedied, as they make
the paper difficult to read.

6. Spelling errors also need to be addressed (for example, its
vs. its, Spirit lake vs. Spirit Lake)."