i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i 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 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,
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i 2
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. i i i
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.
