User:Logan Elkins/Viability assay/Gonzalezmg1 Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

1. Is it obvious to you which sections of the article have been revised? Is the new content relevant to the topic?
   1. Yes, the author clearly marked the current text portion and their new draft portion. The new content is very relevant to the topic. The introduction was rewritten, which clarified the purpose of viability assays and how they can be used. The second added portion was a list of common viability assay methods and the author explained each of them clearly.
2. What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any particular information that you found especially informative?
   1. The article really conveys the versatility of the viability assay and how useful it can be in research. The rewrite of the introduction really impressed me because the original text was very confusing and not very well put together. The new introduction is clear, concise, and introduces the topic well. I didn't know that there were so many different methods!
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?
   1. For the "Common viability assay methods" section you stated that "there are positive and negative aspects to each of these methods" but you did not discuss the positive and negative aspects of each one. I suggest that you either remove the sentence or discuss the positive and negative aspects. It would clarify the section a little bit more. Also, I think that the article is very well organized but think about integrating the "common viability assay methods" section and the "extended list" into the previously written classifications section. That way, the reader knows what each method is classified as. If you do not want to integrate all three sections, then integrate the extended list into the classifications section and have that combined section come before "common viability assay methods."
4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know.
   1. I like how you gave a lot of examples of common methods, I would like to include more examples of polysomal profiling in my article.
5. Is all new content backed up by a reliable source of information?
   1. All new content is backed up by a reliable source.
6. Are the sources fairly current (> 2015)? Check a few links. Do they work?
   1. One of the sources is fairly current, but the others are a bit older.
7. Summarize any typographical/grammatical errors that you found.
   1. The only error I found was in the following sentence: "Viability assays provide a more precise bases for measurement of an organism's level of vitality."
      1. it should be "basis" instead of "bases"
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.
   1. Currently, there are no images, but Dr. McCoy has suggested that you add an image that demonstrates the results obtained from one of the viability techniques.
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.
   1. This article demonstrates how viability assays can be used with other techniques and provides a specific, understandable example of the what viability assays are used for.
   2. Filipova, M., Elhelu, O. K., De Paoli, S. H., Fremuntova, Z., Mosko, T., Cmarko, D., Simak, J., & Holada, K. (2018). An effective "three-in-one" screening assay for testing drug and nanoparticle toxicity in human endothelial cells. PloS one, 13(10), e0206557. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206557

~~~~Maria Gonzalez