h h h h h h h h h h h h h h 1
In response to your request for a peer review of your manuscript on the relationship
between spirituality and loneliness, I have addressed what I believe to be two areas of
strength and three areas of potential improvement.
Strengths
1. The manuscript is well-organized, cogent, and devoid of major formatting errors.
The appropriate use of headings, spacing, table/figure formatting, and your
adherence to the assignment instructions contribute to an overall ease of
readability and demonstrate your commitment to the proofing and revision
process.
2. The demographic data is presented in a meaningful way and the figure included
supports the reader’s understanding of that data. Furthermore, the variables of
interest are clearly stated, as is the hypothesis. The correct statistical analysis
was used and a decision regarding the null hypothesis is stated concisely and
accurately.
Weaknesses
1. A critical figure is missing. Per the assignment instructions (1.b.iii.2), the
manuscript requires a figure related to the tested hypothesis, which, in this case,
would have been a scatterplot depicting the relationship between spirituality and
loneliness (Harris, 2022).
2. There are multiple errors in the statistical write up. Although you correctly
failed to reject the null hypothesis, as supported by the SPSS output, the
h h h h h h h h h h h h h h 2
degrees of freedom are incorrect (40 is stated; 38 is correct [N-2]), the r value
is incorrect (.75 is stated; .075 is correct), and the coefficient of determination
is absent, though it should be included, despite the non-significant findings, per
the Helpful Hints for Success document located in Module 1 (St. Peters, 2022;
Harris, 2022).
3. The discussion portion of the manuscript lacks clarity and depth of thought
regarding the relevance of the findings. Section 2.d of the assignment
instructions necessitates a presentation of the “big picture” (Harris, 2022), yet
neither the importance of these variables as individual constructs nor the
importance of understanding the relationship between the two is adequately
presented here. h h h
One strength of your paper is that it is apparent that you have put a lot of thought
into it. You thoroughly considered your population and how that may have affected, or not
affected, your results. Another strength is that you have a lot of substantial support both
for and against your hypothesis, showing the differences and similarities in other studies.
You also considered many potential confounds of your study. One suggestion I would have
would be to consider future implications of a relationship, or non relationship, of your
variables. Also, don't forget a graph in your paper to visualize your results. Last, consider
breaking up your ideas into more paragraphs.
