User:Jacksonad7/Adaptive response/Cumberbatchbs Peer Review

Peer review
1.Is it obvious to you which sections of the article have been revised? Is the new content relevant to the topic?

'''Yes, the author clearly identified which work was edited vs. unedited. It is easy to see where corrections have been made when comparing the older versions to the newest version. The new content is relevant to the topic. The new material adds a broader look at what adaptive response is whereas before, the original author simply wrote on a particular organism and its specific adaptive response techniques. It also refines the article, making it less jumbled and confusing.'''

2.What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any particular information that you found especially informative.

'''The article adds new and more insightful information to help readers better understand exactly what is being described. The new material adds more depth to whatto the article. The diction also holds true to that of the original author, and does not take away nor over complicate the article for the reader. The unedited version uses one organism ( E. coli), as its example, but the edited version covers more of what adaptive response is as a whole. Although the original version does include some general information, the new material describes the possible mechanics of this process, in addition to adding a second example for why it would occur. Also, the new material also states what can trigger said response and the benefit of said response, rather than just describing what it does. I would say that the inclusion of the mechanism and second example of adaptive response (water) impressed me. They were both informative. The author also interprets the information well into his/her own words, and does so in a way where the information is not un-comprehendible and allows the reader to come to their own conclusions. There is a fair balance of information for each section where one does not overrule the other. The article is also written in a non biased tone where colloquial terms are not used, just scientific and well understood words are used.'''

3.What overall adjustments do you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

'''When comparing both the original to the sandbox copy, the author should place the information involving E.coli under a separate tab or even include it with the example added, and instead place all general and introductory information in the first paragraph. They should then follow it with the SOS genes, then place the kinetics and mechanism afterward. The author should also correct the hyperlink for source 3 of the original article because after clicking it, the page comes up as an error. If applicable, more current sources should be included because no source, edited or original, is past 2015. I suggest the first because it would improve the organization of the article where the beginning speaks on what it is, and what causes it, followed by evidence in examples, then finishing with its mechanisms and kinetics. Also, the figures mentioned in the edited version were not seen. If it is possible for them to be added to the sandbox then this should be done so that it can be peer-reviewed and checked for copyright. This in itself would be the most important aspect to improve along with the hyperlink issue because ensuring that the image or figure is one that is allowed on Wikipedia is quite important in addition to having valid, reachable sources. After this, the articles organization is next because it will make the article easier to follow and understand. One small change also would be to revert the 4 ada genes back to bullet point. This is because it helps lay the 4 different genes out and allows the reader to differentiate between the four easier. It will also help make things look more organized. I would also suggest providing a hyperlink if possible for p53. It is mentioned in the edited section, but a hyperlink will allow readers to quickly read on what the p53 protein is. Also, a source should be included for the experiment. Although it follows after the mention of the second source, because it is a new subsection, it should have a source present to make readers aware of where these experimental findings and figures came from. Finally, other sources should be included with the latter half of the article after the second source is referenced. This is also quite important because respect and credit should be given to the authors from where the information came.'''

4.Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?Let them know.

'''At the moment no. There was nothing mentioned that could be included with cell-cell fusogens. Although, there may be some correlation between the two where the adaptive response can affect cells and the fusogens because this response is used to combat DNA damaging agents. Therefore, with cell-cell fusogens being involved in reproduction and in some way DNA, understanding how cells adapt to attack can help better cell-cell fusogens success. A better understanding for which attacks trigger which responses can also show how each stress factor can affect cell-cell fusogens. However, more research or some article describing their correlation explicitly would need to be found.'''

5.Is all new content backed up by a reliable source of information?

'''Mostly all NEW content is backed up by a reliable source of information. It seems as if the latter Half of the edited report is without a source. When checking both given sources, they seem to only pertain to what they were mentioned near. The source used for the latter half of the article should be included. If one of the two list sources are used for the latter half, the source should be referenced with that information.There are only two sources.'''

6.Are the sources fairly current (> 2015)? Check a few links. Do they work?

'''No, both sources are from before 2015 but they are after 2005. Both articles work and help include more pertinent information that better describes what adaptive response is and how it occurs.'''

7.Summarize any typographical/grammatical errors that you found.

'''One spelling error (L2 edited version), one error involving the use of the wrong synonym and two for the wrong form of a word, and one error where a hyphen should be inserted. In the original there are several inconsistent capitalization errors with the phrase Ada Protein, where in some cases it is capitalized and in others it is not. One of these incidents being at the beginning of a sentence. At the end of the last paragraph in the unedited version, a period should be used rather than a semicolon.'''

8.Student authors are responsible for all images on their page (even if not part of their revised subsection). Double check the original page to make sure images are acceptable and clearly described. See associated tutorial to review Wiki image requirements. Summarize your findings.

'''There are no images in the original version. Two figures used to support the written work were mentioned and seemed to have been intended to be included, but no images or figures were present.'''

9.Identify at least one additional reference that you think may contribute to the article. Explain why you think this article would benefit from the new information. Be sure to provide the reference in your write up.

'''This reference would add new insight on the varying uses of adaptive responses. In this article it talks on the immunological applications of adaptive responses and innate responses. Here, patients were injected with vaccines and the innate and adaptive responses of the body were tracked to see If there was any correlation or interrelationship between them. The article also speaks on the effects that vaccines have on the magnitude of the adaptive responses and other different factors that affect them. This article would allow for a new subheading which would further explain and describe adaptive responses. The article will benefit because it can show the diversity and other applications of the adaptive responses. The article already mentions its mechanisms and description of what it does and its importance, so, this new reference will allow for other applications of adaptive responses to be understood and made known. Additionally, the reference is from 2017 which will give the article a more current and valid reference.'''

Different Adjuvants Induce Common Innate Pathways That Are Associated with Enhanced Adaptive Responses against a Model Antigen in Humans

Wivine Burny, Andrea Callegaro, Viviane Bechtold, Frédéric Clement, Sophie Delhaye, Laurence Fissette, Michel Janssens, Geert Leroux-Roels, Arnaud Marchant, Robert A. van den Berg, Nathalie Garçon, Robbert van der Most, Arnaud M. Didierlaurent, On Behalf of the ECR-002 Study Group

'''Front Immunol. 2017; 8: 943.  Published online 2017 Aug 14. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00943'''


 * PMCID:
 * PMC5557780