University Peer Review Report: Scientific Article Analysis and Review

This report presents a peer review of a scientific article focusing on behavioral changes in dairy cows with clinical mastitis. The review assesses the article's adherence to research standards, including validity, reliability, and currency, highlighting its strengths in clear and concise communication of findings. It critiques the article's presentation, logical flow, and unbiased approach, while also pointing out limitations such as the lack of statistical analysis and graphical data. Recommendations for improvement include refining the title, incorporating additional information and visual aids, and encouraging independent analysis through paraphrasing. The review references the original study and provides a detailed evaluation of its strengths and weaknesses, offering suggestions for enhancing the article's comprehensiveness and impact. The report aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of the scientific article's quality and effectiveness.

Running head: PEER REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE
PEER REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author note:

1PEER REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE
Overall Requirements
Upon reading, it is evident that study engaging in primary research has been discussed
- a key strength in terms of validity and reliability (McCusker and Gunaydin 2015). Further,
the year of publication of the study is 2016, an additional advantage not only indicating
compliance to the requirements of choosing a study published within 2010 to 2017, but also
in terms of selecting a study of relevant currency and hence updated information (Norris
2015) The content and topic of the article is interesting, with its relevance explained
concisely yet clearly. The slight alteration of the title of the article as compared to the one
used by the primary source, affects immediate understanding of the true content of the article.
Nevertheless, the article usage of 772 words indicates near about compliance to the
requirements of 800 words, along with comfortably explaining the major findings of the
primary source in a descriptive, comprehensive yet understandable manner.
Presentation and Content
Upon extensive reading of the review, it can implied that the article extensively
discussed the main findings of the study in a clear and concise as well as explained the key
methodologies used in the study – a major strength in terms of readability and understanding.
Further, an additional key strength of the article lied in its maintenance of logical academic
flow – as evident in the discussion of key terms, definitions and concepts prior to the major
findings which is advantageous to overall understanding (Shea et al. 2017). Further, the
review also displayed no forms of bias by the writer – a key strength in terms of validity – as
evident in the extensive discussion of limitations of the primary source in terms of
generalizability and applicability (Cor 2016). However, direct usage of terms and sentences
from the primary source in the form of quotations, defeats the very purpose of an
independent, unbiased review article. Further, despite avoidance of erroneous reporting, it the

2PEER REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE
review article made no attempts to discuss on the statistical analytical methods used by the
authors of the primary source – a key limitation highlighting incomprehensiveness. Further,
the review also did not include any form of graphical data used by the authors of the primary
source, which could have proven to be beneficial in terms of improvements in understanding
and comprehensiveness (Heale and Twycross 2015). An example of figure from the primary
source which could have benefited
was the tabulated data
discussing on feeding times and
rates, as given below
(Sepúlveda- Varas et al. 2016):
Improvements and Recommendations
Despite the impressive writing style and presentation of findings, there lies scope of
improvement. Altering the title of the paper without changing the meaning or hindering
understanding would prove to be beneficial. Subsequently, addition of information as well as
pictorial sources of information would have greatly assisted in detailed understanding of the
key process and results outlining the findings of the primary source. Lastly, a researcher’s

3PEER REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE
true aim lies in independent analysis and interpretation of existing data. Hence, usage of
one’s own language, through careful paraphrasing of the primary source, would have added a
unique and personal flair to the review and hence, garnered greater attention and engagement
(Mohajan 2017).

4PEER REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE
References
Cor, M.K., 2016. Trust me, it is valid: Research validity in pharmacy education research.
Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 8(3), pp.391-400.
Heale, R. and Twycross, A., 2015. Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Evidence-
based nursing, 18(3), pp.66-67.
McCusker, K. and Gunaydin, S., 2015. Research using qualitative, quantitative or mixed
methods and choice based on the research. Perfusion, 30(7), pp.537-542.
Mohajan, H.K., 2017. Two criteria for good measurements in research: Validity and
reliability. Annals of Spiru Haret University. Economic Series, 17(4), pp.59-82.
Norris, J.M., Plonsky, L., Ross, S.J. and Schoonen, R., 2015. Guidelines for reporting
quantitative methods and results in primary research. Language Learning, 65(2), pp.470-476.
Sepúlveda-Varas, P., Proudfoot, K.L., Weary, D.M. and von Keyserlingk, M.A., 2016.
Changes in behaviour of dairy cows with clinical mastitis. Applied Animal Behaviour
Science, 175, pp.8-13.
Shea, B.J., Reeves, B.C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., Moher, D., Tugwell,
P., Welch, V., Kristjansson, E. and Henry, D.A., 2017. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool
for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare
interventions, or both. Bmj, 358, p.j4008.