Month: February 2021

I think that the peer review process is a necessary part of successful scientific writings. It ensures that the content provided for the scientific community remains high quality toward learning and subsequent research. Thus, in this blog post, I will reflect on my feelings toward criticizing other people’s works as well as how I can apply peer review toward improving my own paper.

Peer review is a delicate task. It requires attention to detail as well as an ability to see the paper as a whole. Peer review is not about nitpicking other people’s mistakes but rather providing them with suggestions on how to improve. It is a process that requires positive remarks as well as constructive criticisms. Positive remarks are useful to point out what the author is good at. Regardless of how many improvements that a paper needs, there will always be something that the author does well.

There is a fine but very thin line between constructive criticisms and personal attacks toward the author. Constructive criticisms are about pointing out mistakes that could be detrimental to the author’s paper as well as ways to improve on those mistakes. Personal attacks are statements that are not constructive nor helpful toward both the author and the reviewer. The main goal of peer review is to improve, not to attack. Thus, the peer reviewer should solely focus on improving the paper rather than trying to attack the author’s standpoint on a certain topic.

Through the process of peer review, I learn to avoid mistakes that I might make while writing my own papers. I learn to see the positive sides of a paper regardless of the improvements that it needs. Thus, even after doing so many peer reviews, I think that having a bird-eye view of my paper will help me tremendously.

Peer review is the reading and critique of various aspects of a peer’s paper. Peer review is often conducted between two people of equal educational levels. Thus, the cornerstones of successful peer review are positive comments as well as constructive comments.

Firstly, the peer-review process starts with the analysis of the author’s thesis statement. The thesis statement provides the main idea that the author will focus on throughout the essay. Even in a refutation paper, the main thesis statement would serve as the main idea to refute a popular idea. The thesis statement is often found as the last sentence of the first paragraph. Next, the main ideas of each paragraph are taken into consideration. The peer will then tie back the main ideas of each paragraph to the thesis statement. The ideal essay would see the main ideas as closely as possible to support the thesis statement.

Secondly, the examination of evidence. Consistency is key. The evidence provides the author with information as well as statistics to back up their claims. The peer will examine the author’s evidence based on how relevant the evidence is to the theme of a paragraph. If the evidence is relevant, the peer will then examine the author’s interpretation of the evidence in the context of the paragraph. The peer will also analyze how the evidence supports or refute the thesis statement to make sure there would be no inconsistency.

Next, the peer will analyze the author’s language toward the intended audience. This is a more minor aspect of peer review. The level of scientific literacy differs between journals aimed toward scientists and articles in popular magazines. Thus, it is crucial for the peer to ensure that the language is appropriate toward the intended audience.

The final critique comes in the form of constructive comments on how the author could improve the paper. Perhaps it is readability, perhaps it is the transition between one paragraph to another. The peer’s role in this process is to ensure ideas from one paragraph connect to another to provide a comprehensive paper. Thus, this is also the part in which the peer also criticizes the paper as a whole.

Decreased exposure to microbes is associated with an increased likelihood that a child will develop allergies and asthma. Dysbiosis, a condition in which the human microflora suffers a loss of diversity or count of bacteria, is another consequence. Several illnesses in the GI tract are the result of dysbioses, such as Crohn’s disease and inflammatory bowel disease. Thus, it is crucial that behaviors that lead to decreased exposure to microbes are discussed. Hence, medical procedures that result in decreased exposure will not be addressed in this post.

First, the use of products that are harmful to microbes is perhaps the easiest to figure out. These products include antibiotics, disinfectants, and cleaning products. While the use of these products can be justified by hygiene and medical needs, it still leads to decreased exposure to microbes. Antibiotics are the most harmful of all. These medications eliminate both the good and the bad microbes, thus worsening dysbiosis. The use of these medications also possesses the risk of bacteria developing resistance.

Second, not allowing a child to interact with the world can also lead to dysbiosis. How often did you hear your mother said: “Stay home, don’t get some sunlight and playtime?” Playtime encourages interactions with other children and dirt, both possessing microbes. While we are in a pandemic, alternatives like backyard sports and such can be an option.

Third, the lack of breastfeeding can lead to decreased exposure to microbes for the infant. Breastmilk is not only nutritious for the infant but also contains microbes from the mother’s skin and milk. Furthermore, the mother’s behaviors during pregnancy can lead to decreased exposure to microbes to the fetus. Should the mother choose to smoke or consume alcohol or antibiotics during pregnancy, the fetus suffers. Not only in terms of prenatal illnesses but also reduced exposure to microbes.

Exposure to microbes from a young age, even bad microbes like Helicobacter pylori, is helpful toward the developmental health of a child. It is crucial in the sense that the child will grow up with a minimal amount of autoimmune diseases and dysbiosis.