User:Kitterbitter160/Scientific integrity/Victorialbowles1042 Peer Review

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

> The tone is neutral and balanced.

> The content added is very clear, well written and well organized. The content added has greatly improved the overall quality of the article. The information added was very well done.

> There are a few extra spaces between the sentences "The NIH fosters the definition of Scientific Integrity from the HHS Scientific Integrity Policy draft to ensure their scientific findings are objective, creditable, transparent, and readily available to the public." and " All NIH staff are expected to"

> " In a statement made by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), adopted the definition of Scientific Integrity as stated below." >>> this should be rephrased for better readability. For example, you could say "The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has adopted the following definition of Scientific Integrity, and this policy is currently under review."

> In the sentence "To promote a culture of scientific integrity at HHS, they have outlined their policy as seven specific areas", change from "outlined their policy as seven specific areas" to "outlined their policy in seven specific areas." That would make the sentence more readable.

> A comma I believe should be added between "falsification" and "as well"

> Overall, the text provides valuable information but could be further refined for clarity and conciseness.