c c c c c c c c c c c c c 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
c c c c c c c c c c c c c 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. c c c
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.
