intro

No matter what area you pursue in your career, at some point you will have to give feedback to peers, those you supervise, or your bosses. Providing helpful critique is an important skill. You should be honest, helpful and direct. You should not be cruel or abusive, nor vague and uncritical.

Review 3 peers’ introductions, give them substantive suggestions on:

- do the ideas follow in a logical fashion? - is the writing clear? -do the sentences make sense>?

- are the ideas connected and relevant to each other?

- is the grammar correct? (and spelling!) The author should have done a grammar and spell check before submitting, so don’t spend too much time on this area.

Note:

-mouse gene names are formatted with only the first letter capitalized, and the name in italics: Olf554

-mouse protein symbols are the same, but not italicized: Olf554

-human gene names are all capitalized, and italics: OLF554

-human protein symbols are all caps, no italics OLF554 (the full name, olfactory receptor 554 is just usual text)

- species names should be italicized: Mus musculus or Homo sapiens

In text references with the CSE format are expected. The format is: last name of the first author, comma year in parentheses. If there are only two authors, provide both names, more than 2, use first name and et al.

Specific questions:

Does the writing introduce the reader to the broader topic and include interesting and relevant facts?

Is the writing clear, organized well and flow well from one idea to another?

Is the text grammatically correct with no spelling errors?

Are in text references in the correct format?

Is the literature cited section included and in the correct format?

Are images (if used, not required) appropriate and helpful to communicate an important concept?

What are the general strengths of introduction?

What are the general weakness?

Peer Review