Lab Report Peer Review Worksheet

Title of Paper Reviewed: Are Gummy Bears a Viable Alternative to Rocket Fuel?

Author Name: Omar Qureshi

Reviewer’s Name: Tanha Rani

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

The sections included in the lab are an abstract, introduction, methods and materials, results, discussion, conclusion, and references. No sections are missing. 

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 a mixture of active and passive voices. For example, when introducing the experiment, the author wrote, “In this experiment, gummy bears were melted and powdered in order to create the correct state of matter to convert them into energy.” Which shows that a passive voice is being used. Later, they wrote, “To begin, we must understand the process between being the edible candy we eat, and the fuel that sends a rocket thousands of feet into the air.” This shows an active voice because the author is suggesting that the experiment is being conducted by the author and the audience. 

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 context is explained fairly well, with details provided to help differentiate between the candy we eat, and rocket candy being used to fuel the rocket in this experiment. However, there is no hypothesis stated and more details are needed regarding the actual experiment. 

4. Identify the hypothesis.

There is no identifiable hypothesis. 

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. 

The lab is, for the most part, ethically written but oftentimes the author puts their own opinion such as in the end of the conclusion when they provide their own opinion that the future of rockets and rocket engineering will expand. 

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/materials section is detailed, but the methods section should have been more specific because it is not clear that the methodology will provide valid results. The whole section needs more explanation. 

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 only reports the data instead of interpreting it.

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 providing one will make interpreting the data more useful for the audience. 

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 section needs more work because although the science behind the results is explained, the results are not interpreted. There is no mention of a hypothesis in this lab. 

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

The strengths of this lab are that the author’s writing style is easy to read/understand, and the experiment used is very interesting. Improvements in grammar and spelling could be made and specific areas such as the results and methods/materials section need to be more informative. My question about the content written is, how much outside research was needed in order to write this lab?