Open-ended peer review form for a science lab reportfrom University of Hawaii at Manoa's Writing Program (HTML) ( This site may be offline. ) .
1) Does the Introduction adequately explain the theory behind the experiment and the objective of the experiment? What is missing? What could be deleted?
2) Are all of the materials used listed in the Apparatus and Supplies section? Is enough detail given about the instrument's size, range, accuracy, etc.? Does a drawing illustrate the set-up? If no, what is missing?
3) Does the writer describe, in detail, all procedures (Procedures section)? What needs more explanation? What could be deleted?
4) Does the writer provide all equations used? Are they correct and appropriate? Explain.
5) Does the writer clearly present the results in the Results section? Are data, figures, and charts clearly labeled? Explain and list any problems.
6) In the Error Analysis section, does the writer discuss the cause of any significant errors? Are the errors quantified and are their influences explored? Explain.
7) Does the writer state his/her conclusions (in the Conclusions section) accurately and clearly? Explain.
8) Does the abstract summarize the whole experiment, including the findings, in no more than 100 words? What could be added or deleted?
9) Does the writer use phrases such as "The pressure was measured by the mercury monameter" instead of "I measured the pressure..."? (Does the writer use the passive tense as appropriate?)