Tag Archives: peer review

Peer-Review

For this peer-review, I read a post about Direct to Consumer ads by @thejenetic that was published on November 28. From reading this contribution, I learned how this person feels about DTC ads. This person is against DTC ads. Also, I learned how the pharmaceutical industry is increasing its advertisement over the past 4 years; they’re spending millions, billions of dollars for this DTC ads. From what I understand, DTC ads affect consumers because they buy drugs that probably aren’t effective not to mention with a lot of bad side effects. It would be good for an older adult or a teenager to read this contribution because it will help these people understand and learn about the Direct to Consumer ads; it is important for people to know the truth. An older adult would benefit from reading this because I’ve noticed that there are a lot of DTC advertisement directed toward older adults. For example, some ads would say something like “Are you having back problems?, are you having a hard time walking?, etc.” For teenagers, they may benefit from reading this because most of them aren’t aware of the issues related with DTC ads. DTC ads target everybody but especially people who aren’t aware, I think. Direct to Consumer ads may say something “Are you having trouble sleeping?” I mean who isn’t having trouble sleeping sometimes?

The strongest (or most credible) part of this contribution is when this person actually read a lot of articles to back up what they said in this prompt. There are links to click on to take you to those articles just in case you want to know where they got the information. The weakest part (or something that someone might question) about this contribution is probably not citing all the information at the end. One part that I had to read more than once in order to understand it is ” The AMA also listed a study found that when medications were marketed directly to the consumer they saw an increase in the price of 34.2%.” The sentence structure got me confused. I found one error where this person said “To make things worse the pharmaceutical industry is pushing for more freedom in their advertisement practices so they can market drugs for off-label uses.” I believe this person may be missing a comma at the start of this sentence after the word “worse”. One part that made me want to read more on this topic is in general all the issues about direct to consumers ads. I am a curious person so it made me want to read more even though I also did read and watched videos about this DTC ads practice. On a 1 to 4 scale where 1 is the lowest possible and 4 is the highest possible, I rate this contribution a 3.5 overall because it contained informative information. But because, in addition, it had two sentences that were confusing and didn’t provide a citation at the end of the work.

Advertisements

Peer Review

I am reviewing cnevans1 post “Early Life and Childhood Prompt 1”. Their discussion of parents and future parents being incredibly vulnerable consumers is spot on. I have seen this first hand when my cousins and other family members have babies on the way. I believe that it would be very beneficial for a new parent or parent to be to read this post because it discusses the differences between a child’s wants, a child’s needs, and what a parent thinks the child needs. This comparison is the strongest part of cnevans1’s discussion because so often these three subjects become cloudy and it can be difficult to differentiate between wants, needs, and expectations. I wanted to read more about this topic when they discussed C-sections and natural birth. My mother had a C-section that saved our lives, my half sister had two emergency C-sections, and so many other women have C-sections for a variety of reasons. Recently, it has become normal to shame women for having C-sections. I have seen women tell other women that they are not real mothers and should be ashamed of themselves for not having a natural birth. And this breaks my heart because if anyone said anything like that to my mom, I would want to break them. I would love to do more research into the stigma behind C-sections and how to break that stigma. I would give cnevans1 a 3.5 out of 4 for this post. It was in depth and discussed multiple aspects of new parenthood and what it is like to be expecting a child.

Peer Review

I chose to do my peer review on jdie4’s Food Prompt 1 post. From reading this contribution, I learned that there are almost 100 different added sugars that are put onto food labels. So we as consumers barely know what we are eating nowadays. It would be good for a college student or parent to read this contribution because from this we can understand that buying products that have nearly no sugar in them, still have hidden sugars in them because the manufacturers hide the sugars on the labels. Or do not put them on the labels at all. The strongest (or most credible) part of this contribution is when the author talks about how to fix this situation, which is buying solely raw ingredients and avoiding things that come in a package. The weakest part (or something that someone might question) about this contribution is when the author talks about how the FDA may begin requiring all the food labels to say all the added sugar. But the manufacturers might fight this and not want to do it. (If any) One part that I had to read more than once in order to understand it is was no parts. The author made a great case when it came to defending his points on the added sugars with food labels. (If any) I did not find any typos, although just a few minor grammatical errors throughout. (Such as commas and semicolons).One part that made me want to read more on this topic is when the author brings up how this might be affecting Type 2 Diabetes. This hits close to home for me because a lot of my family members have Type 2 DIabetes, so we are very cautious when it comes to our sugar levels and what we eat. On a 1 to 4 scale where 1 is the lowest possible and 4 is the highest possible, I rate this contribution a 3.5 overall, because the whole article was great and I really enjoyed reading it. The one thing I would change would just to add paragraphs instead of one whole paragraph. Sometimes when people read a huge article and there are no paragraphs it can be overwhelming.

Peer Reviewed Comment

For my peer-reviewed comment, I decided to review thejenetic’s food prompt 1.

  • From reading this contribution, I learned that there are over 61 names that added sugars can be listed in food and nutrition labels under. This was surprising to me because it seems somewhat deceptive that companies would try and add certain ingredients that are unhealthy for us and change the name so we aren’t aware.
  • It would be good for a parent to read this contribution because of how well you went in depth about childhood obesity and its correlation to sugar intake. You mentioned how child obesity has risen from 7% to 18% since the 1970s in 6-11 year olds. Unfortunately this is not surprising because of the unhealthy diets that most Americans engage in.

  • The strongest (or most credible) part of this contribution is your summarization of the study done using 43 cocaine-addicted rats to prove that sugar is more addicting than cocaine. This is a strong study and it was very nicely and briefly recapped by you.

  • Something that someone might question about this contribution is what kind of actions did the Obama Administration take in order to improve the nutritional standards of school lunches?

  • One part that I had to read more than once in order to understand it is that there was a law that was passed allowing tomato sauce on pizza to be considered a vegetable serving. I read this multiple times, not because there was an error in your work, but because it just sounds so appalling to think that somehow pizza was considered a vegetable. Leave it to Americans, right?

  • Your work was well thought out and ultimately error free. There was only one minor slip up in the last paragraph of your contribution where you said “It makes me angry how dishonest our food industry.” Where it should be “It makes me angry how dishonest our food industry IS.”

  • One part that made me want to read more on this topic is all the possible diseases that can come from too much sugar intake. Things such as cardiovascular disease, high triglycerides and hypertension. Even though, as you also mentioned, added sugar is in 74% of packaged foods. IT is crazy to think about how business oriented this country is and how they are more concerned with the sales of product than what we are consuming and putting into our bodies.

  • On a 1 to 4 scale where 1 is the lowest possible and 4 is the highest possible, I rate this contribution a 4 overall, because you provided a well organized response that included specific case studies and actual statistics to prove your points. Your recommendation noted at the end about consumers pushing for better guidelines could not be more spot on. It is clear that we can’t trust the government to do it, so it is up to us as consumers to step in and make a change.

Peer Review Post

For my peer review post, I reviewed bmooreee’s post, “Illness and Mortality #1.”

From reading this contribution, I learned that the WA State Social Services on Elderly Care provided information about services that are available for the elderly, and how they can be paid for.

It would be good for an adult looking for information for an older family member to read this contribution, because it provides helpful information on whether or not the website is useful or not.

The strongest (or most credible) part of this contribution is where the website was criticized. I think many people who read through the website would be wondering the same thing, as to why they didn’t provide any more information about where the services were available.

The weakest part (or something that someone might question) about this contribution is I think it would have been helpful to state which pages this information was found on about services offered, costs, etc. I also suggest that this paragraph could have been broken down into 2-3 paragraphs because it is pretty long and has different topics.

I found a couple typos, spelling, grammar, &/or punctuation errors. “If I were to be looking for services for my loved on…”, “on” was misspelled for “one”. I also saw that the word “county” wasn’t capitalized for “King County”, and “Pierce County”, when they should have been because they are proper nouns.

One part that made me want to read more on this topic is the PACE Program because it could be offered in other locations.

On a 1 to 4 scale where 1 is the lowest possible and 4 is the highest possible, I rate this contribution a 3 overall, because very beneficial and important information was provided, but the paragraph could have been broken up so it would be easier to follow.

Peer Review Comment

For my Peer Review Comment, I reviewed asinnersthoughts on food! I have left a comment on the original post and below is a copy.

“The main point of this contribution is found in this sentence “…it can cause a lot of shock onto your body because it is not the same nutrients”.

From reading this contribution I learned a lot about you. I personally think it takes a lot of strength and discipline to carry out this lifestyle and it would be very tough for me to change my entire eating habits to become a vegetarian. I am also relieved to know that I am not the only one with the common misconception of justifying all carb loaded foods because “I’m not eating any meat products”.

It would be good for a college student to read this contribution because some of us, including myself, think that being a vegetarian is only eating vegetables, however, you mentioned that you also eat pastas and bread which honestly never crossed my mind. I am also glad that you touched on the moderation subject because usually, most people think you’re really healthy because you are a vegetarian but like you said “I justified eating all of these” … (unhealthy foods) … “under the idea that it was in moderation and that there was no meat in the meal.”

The strongest part of this contribution, to me, was the part where you said, “I feel like this is a concept that we as consumers are not super familiar with and that’s why moderation becomes a back-burner concept to a lot of us.” It’s true, I think that everyone falls guilty of practicing moderation and most of us don’t even entirely know the proper way of it.

Something that someone my question about this contribution is when you said “I am a vegetarian and that can go wrong very quickly.” A few questions that could arise are:

How could being a vegetarian go wrong very quickly? Does this have to do with health? Money? Habits?

Aside from this, this post was generally good and easy to read and understand.

I did find a couple grammar errors which I’m sure were just you trying to type as fast as you could so you wouldn’t forget your thoughts (me all the time). They were both in the first paragraph, the first one came from this sentence “I did wanted to exceed those limits.” (want rather than wanted), and the second came from the following sentence: “Now that I am adult…” (Now that I am an adult…).

Your section on being a vegetarian made me want to read more on this topic. Maybe for the new year I could try it out (not sure how long it would last) but I am sure that there are healthier alternatives to eating meat (I mostly just eat chicken or seafood… so maybe I’m kind of almost there? Probably… not really…)

On a 1 to 4 scale where 1 is the lowest possible and 4 is the highest possible, I rate this contribution a 4 overall, because you answered the prompt in a clear and concise way, and made it personal. I hope that you have been able to practice moderation cautiously like you wanted to!”

 

Peer Review

The post I choose to peer review was “Greenwashing Prompt and Response” by Kelsey. From this contribution, I learned more about the dishonest nature of greenwashing and how items often advertised as environmentally friends are not. It would be good for environmentally conscious consumers to read this because it highlights the ethical negligence and corruption found among environmentally friendly marketing.

The strongest part of this contribution is the Simple Green product example. This company markets their products as non-toxic and biodegradable but, in reality, they are harmful to both human health and the environment. One would also think that with a name like ‘Simple Green’ the company would have eco-friendly products.

I did not notice any spelling/grammar mistakes, but it did see errors in the author’s citations. Firstly, I believe the author used MLA format for the references but APA for the in-text citations. In addition, the source (Simple Green, 2017) is incorrect as it is cited from the Environmental Working Group website. The correct citation would be (Environmental Working Group, n.d.) for APA.

One portion that made me want to read more was the information from the EWG. The site made me curious to see where products I often use fell on their rating scale.

Overall, I would give this post a 3/4. It includes some good information and is written in an interesting way. I removed one point as I do feel like the author could have developed their thoughts on how products like Simple Green cause health and environmental issues.