“Peer Review” – Our Essay Example

Proposal 1: Critique – Effect of professional appearance on perceived occupational competence

This study aims at finding out how a woman’s external professional appearance affects the conclusion others make about her level of occupational competence. The proposal surveys Georgetown undergraduate students receiving a random standard biography accompanied by photographs of both professional and unprofessional dressed looking women. In this proposal, the introduction is well done because the readers provide comprehensive information for the research paper. However, the author should add the element of “statement of problem separately in order to evaluate the problem comprehensively. The objective of the research proposal is also very clear.
As well, the author should provide a clear distinction of the hypotheses by showing the relationship between the hypotheses by giving both a positive and negative hypotheses. Even though the author provides detailed design, methods and procedures, he/she should use clear language and be precise. In addition, there should be coherence between the proposed design, methods and design procedures. It would also be important for the writer to mention the proposed methodology, design and the analysis in the introduction. Looking at the ethical considerations, the author gives the participant freedom of withdrawing from participating in case they feel unsecure. The author should address how to maintain confidentiality pertaining to participant’s personal information.

Proposal 2: critique: Do Age and Gender Have effects on One’s Openness to a Random Hookup
The proposal aims at determining whether age or gender have any effects on the openness of an individual to a random hookup. The hypothesis, methodology, data analysis, and data procedure provided by the author is slightly unclear. The author should base his /her argument on the title of the proposal In addition; author only discusses the design but fails to disclose the strengths and problems regarding the design. The author is also unclear about the ethical considerations because he/she only explains about the anonymity of the participants, yet provides an incentive to trigger the participants.