Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

TO: Professor Cecilia Musselman FROM: Jocelyn Campino DATE: October 17th, 2012 SUBJECT: Author Modis Peer

Review Summary: In this literature review, author Modi examines five articles comparing the effects of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder on the structures of the brain. More specifically, the author looks at gray matter volume, structural differences, and cortical thickness within the brain when making comparisons. Major Points: I found this literature review extremely difficult to read. Though paragraphs organized ideas nicely, sentences within each of the paragraphs often did not relate to either the prior sentence or the following sentence. This was most noticeable in the paragraph on cortical thickness. In the introduction, sentence length was kept very short, and made for a choppy opening with a lack of flow. Word choice was also an issue. In transitions especially, the chosen diction made me wonder if there might have been another word the author was searching for (ie. meanwhile, for once, this time). Word count is at 1765, and does not currently meet minimum length requirement. Minor Points: Overall, I feel the author could have used slightly more formal language throughout with respect to the targeted audience. Words like basically and for a while seemed unscholarly and out of place. I would recommend the author review grammar throughout the review, and focus on the sound and flow of the writing. Certain phrasing may have been slightly awkward. Author should also beware redundancies in the writing (ie. closing sentence of the introduction). Author should double check that all writing is conducted in the same tense, past or present, and should be as specific and concise as possible at all times. Instead of reporting that there were increases and decreases, author should note what exactly increased or decreased, and what the effect of that increase or decrease could be. Assessment: The author demonstrates an understanding of scholarship in the field, and as the articles are all from the past two years, demonstrates understanding that is current and relevant. I feel the author does not use tone, writing style, or vocabulary appropriate to the scholarly audience, and can work to improve in this area. The author does note differences in positions between studies, but could be clearer in this area, and emphasize the conflicting study results. The author demonstrates a fair attitude towards multiple sources, uses appropriate citation conventions (though there could be more), and fulfills the genre requirement.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi