Peer Review: Biomedical Engineering

Peer Review Worksheet – Inquiry Essay

Introduction:

What is the initial inquiry question?  Is it expressed clearly?  Why/why not?

The question is not expressed clearly, but I assume it is something along the lines of “Is Biomedical engineering ethical”. The author does not phrase it as a question, but more like an argument.

How does the author draw in the reader’s interest?  Can it more effectively?  Is this an inquiry with greater import?  Is it expressed? (note: it might be more effective expressed later in the inquiry.)

The author draws in the reader’s interest with the same tone as the rest of the paper. The interest can be gathered in a more effective manner than the opening paragraph of this paper.

Do we know where the author prior knowledge?  Does s/he have a stake in the inquiry?

The author seems to have some prior knowledge on the subject, but uses research to back the important points up. The author has a stake in the inquiry, she seeks to show that the US should be more open to biomedical engineering.

Voice:

How would you characterize the voice?  Is it effective for the subject material?  Do we believe in the inquisitiveness of the author (does this matter to him/her)?

The voice is consistent throughout and is appropriate to the writing, but the author does not seem inquisitive in her writing.

If the voice/tone breaks from type, point it out to the author.  Should it not?

The voice is consistent throughout.

Abstactions/Generalities: are there any instances where abstract ideas need specific details and concrete support for greater understanding?  Point these out.

I did not find any big ones.

Body:

Is the author’s thought process evident?  Are we led smoothly from one section of the inquiry to the next?  Are there any questions/answers the author missed?  What are they?

The author expresses the paper more like a thesis, but it is smooth.

Does the author question his/her own assumptions, findings, logic? 

The author  does not question her findings.

How is research effectively used?  Incorporation of quotes?  Does the research lead to other branchs of inquiry?  Intellectual disciplines?  Are there missed opportunities for expansion?

Research is evident and the author uses quotes. The research does lead to more thoughts and elaboration, but not questioning.

Does the author maintain your interest?  How so?  Where does your attention lag?  Why?  How can it be fixed?

The author maintains my interest through the interesting research points and historical bans on biomedical engineering. My attention only lags in the fact that I was looking for more of a question based writing. It can be fixed by phrasing the paper through the exploration of a question.

Does the reader continue to broaden the inquiry?  Should it be further broadened, complicated?

The reader broadens the inquiry.

Conclusion:

How does the conclusion operate? (Is an answer found?  Is the initial inquiry complicated, expanded?  Does it point to further inquiry?  Does it conclude with greater import/implications?)

There isn’t really an answer because there isn’t really a question. For a thesis ending, I thought it was effective and it summed the ethics of biomedical engineering up.

Is it effective?  Are you, the reader, satisfied with the ending?  Why, why not?  What are some suggestions for greater effectiveness?

The ending is effective for a thesis paper, but this isn’t a thesis. To make it effective as an inquiry, explain how each research point affects the formulation of an answer.