Peer Review Huntington's Disease

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?)

The lead introduces a sympathetic tone to illustrate how devastating Huntington’s disease is. The claims are not common knowledge and were engaging.

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?

The lead is very clear that the story is about Huntington’s Disease. It is not mysterious.

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 story is very structured and flows well. The science is backed up well with explanations.

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

Each paragraph has its own ideas and they do not mesh with each other.

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?

I liked all of the points, I don’t think they need more development. I followed each point well.

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.

I think that you have plenty of prickles. Perhaps you could add more goo to the writing, but the science flows well still without it.

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

There are plenty of examples and statistics, just add a works cited.

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?

The story is concluded with the current options and how they are not good enough. There is a need for newer and more effective treatment options for Huntington’s Disease and that is what the author conveys.

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).

The voice was very scientific and professional except in the lead, where the author wanted to express how awful of a disease it really is.

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)?

The audience is an average person that has some experience with science and higher level material. The paper is not for a lower level reader, but it still remains interesting and does not bog down with challenging details.

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.

The vocabulary and mechanics were good.