User:Socratic mindset/Biomarkers of aging/Chamnessra Peer Review

Peer review
By Reilley Chamness:


 * 1) Is it obvious to you which sections of the article have been revised? Is the new content relevant to the topic?

'''Yes, it is obvious to the reader that the introduction and section entitled ‘Applications of Biomarkers of Aging’ have been revised. The content added is relevant to the topic, but also rather general. Maybe some more details or other sections from the original article could be added.'''

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 is well written and easy for a reader with or without a scientific background to understand. I like how the writer addressed the larger ways in which Biomarkers of Aging could be used both in research and for promoting species from an ecological standpoint. I think this information is especially informative because it emphasizes the importance of the topic.'''

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?

'''The studies mentioned in the introduction need a lot more detail. I feel as though this information isn’t quite adding to the article yet, but is important to include. Also, the original article has a significant amount of information about histones and this should also be included in your article as well. The most important thing the author could do to overall improve the article is provide some information to connect the introduction and higher implications of Biomarkers of aging together, as these two sections seem like separate ideas.'''

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

'''Yes, my article is about Molecular Cytogenetics (combining molecular biology and genetics into one discipline). Although this topic is more on the cellular/chromosomal level, I think identifying the age and other genetic parameters on the species level like with Biomarkers of Aging could compliment the research in my article very well. DNA methylation is also involved in Molecular Cytogenetics as part of analyzation methods, so there is some similarity behind the mechanisms in our topics.'''

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

'''Yes, the bibliography is very detailed and includes what information is found from which sources. This was very helpful during peer review.'''

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

The sources are current and all of the links work.

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

'''I see no immediate grammar errors. However, there are some points where I would include commas, like when starting a sentence with ‘also’. A lot of the sentence structures are very similar so maybe consider some reorganization. '''

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.

No images are included in the original or rewritten article.

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.

'''Below I have included a citation for a review article on Biomarkers of Aging. I think it explains the fundamentals behind the topic very well. This maybe be helpful in filling in some of the details needed in your article. I usually look for articles and reviews on PubMed, as there are lots of other resources to be found. Here is the article:  '''

Crimmins, E., Vasunilashorn, S., Kim, J. K., & Alley, D. (2008). Biomarkers related to aging in human populations. Advances in clinical chemistry, 46, 161–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2423(08)00405-8