Lab Report Peer Review Worksheet
Author Name: Kareem Elsheikh
Reviewer’s Name: Dennis Chen

 

1. What sections does the lab report include? What, if any, sections are missing?

• The author includes the abstract, introduction, materials, method, results, discussion, and
  conclusion.

2. Is the lab report written in active voice, passive voice, or a mixture? Identify an
example of each voice the lab report uses.

• The lab report is written in active voice based on the use of words like “I” and “you”. For
  example, “After following the method, you will witness the drum being crushed in like we
  were squeezing the air out of it.”

3. How well does the introduction provide context and significance for the
experiment? What details help you better understand the experiment? Where do
you need more details? Are there any details that could be eliminated?

• The introduction explains the significance of the experiment and introduces the concept in
  an interesting manner that will capture the audiences attention. Certain details like the
  statements, “Since there is so much air around us the amount of pressure it is exerting on
  us is massive but how are we not being crushed to death by the large amount of pressure.
  This is because the amount of pressure that is in us is equal to the amount of pressure that
  is exerted on us.” It is a majority of the introduction and it does a good job of providing
  context as well as transitioning into the hypothesis and experiment.

4. Identify the hypothesis.

• This will cause the object to compress till both pressures are equalized.

5. How ethically is this written? In other words, how much does the author stick to
reporting observable results? Identify any places where the author includes
subjectivity/personal reflections.

• This is ethically written as the author states the results of the experiment and goes into
  explanation solely on the results by giving detail to why it occurs and clearly addressing
  main focus of the experiment.

6. How well does the methods/materials section persuade the reader that the chosen
methodology and materials are appropriate and valid for testing the hypothesis, and
will lead to credible and valid results? Are there any places in the
methods/materials section that you need more clarity?

• The methods and sections are written in a clear manner where it is super easy to follow
  along as to how the materials are used and how the results are explained because the
  sections will address all the details and state that it will result in the same findings as this
  one.

7. Does the results section interpret the data, or stick to solely reporting it? Identify
any areas where the results section interprets the data.

• The results section sticks to both reporting it and interpreting it as well to help us
  understand why the material is acting in a certain way to clear the confusion if there is any.

8. Does the results section include any visual representations of the data? Would a
visual representation be useful, or is the data clear enough without?

• There is no visual representation but I believe for an experiment like this it would be useful
  to see how the drums react.

9. Does the discussion section interpret the results clearly? According to the author,
how do the results relate to the original hypothesis? Where could more explanation
be useful?

• The discussion page did interpret the results clearly and definitely supports the authors
  original hypothesis. He goes in depth of how certain things interacted with the drum and
  how the pressure is affected as well and ultimately the pressure being exerted is found to be
  the same. I believe that it is clear enough.

10. Identify 2 Strengths, and 2 areas for improvement and ask 1 question about the
content written.

• One strength would be that the author clearly spoke about what he wanted to discover
  and explained the significance of the experiment in a very persuading and captivating
  manner.
• A second strength would be that the experiment is clearly listed and explained to help
  us see how the experiment is run and by listing it in this way, there is less confusion on
  how the experiment proceeds.
• An area for improvement would be including a visual representation; an experiment
  like this would be beneficial if it had some sort of visual guide to see how the pressure
  reacts.
• Another area for improvement (although very minor) would be checking grammar.
  One question is if your hypothesis proved to be correct for drums specifically, could it
  be different for something else? A different instrument or tool that does the same thing
  but would the result still be the same?