Voorbeeld Engels nakijken

Editor feedback: I recommend introducing your central theme – the need for pharmaceutical trials to include more diverse participants – earlier in your paper. This way, your reader understands what your paper is about from the very beginning. See my comments for specific suggestions.

Editor feedback: You’ve done a nice job of forming sections with clear themes. However, it’s not always clear how your sections support the main goal of your paper. As you revise, be sure to clearly link each section to your central theme or research question. This will help you build strong, interconnected arguments.

Editor feedback: A strong title should be informative, striking and appropriate. Your title is definitely striking. However, it could be more informative. I recommend rephrasing your title to specify the central theme of your paper. For more tips, check out this article: https://www.scribbr.com/academic-writing/forging-good-titles-in-academic-writing/.

Editor feedback: Typically, a preface should end with your name and the date and place of writing.

Editor feedback: You should be able to cut your abstract down to one page by single-spacing the text and removing the title/author information.

Editor feedback: You simply write that you conducted your study to prove your hypotheses. Be more specific. What was the goal of your study?

Editor feedback: You have hinted at the research questions that you formulate in your literature review, but you have not explicitly presented them. I have suggested a place where it would be helpful to add them.

Editor feedback: Be sure to clearly answer the research question in the abstract. The abstract should read like a miniature version of the entire paper.

Editor feedback: At the end of the abstract you should add a summary of the recommendations that you have included in chapter 7. This summary should include your ideas for future research.

Editor feedback: Opening with the broad significance of the topic will be helpful here.

Editor feedback: Here, you should describe the study’s relevance to pharmaceutical companies, along with any other practical applications.

Editor feedback: I recommend summarizing the articles in your literature review, rather than simply listing them, as this will help your readers understand the starting point for your research.

Editor feedback: You have not mentioned your research questions in the “study objectives” section of the introduction (where they should typically be included). In my comments, I suggested an appropriate place to add them.

Editor feedback: You have not explained how your research is conducted. In my comments, I recommended a place in the “study objectives” section where you could add a brief explanation of your methodology.

Editor feedback: You’ve answered two of your three research questions, but the answer to the final research question seems to be missing (see my in-text comment). I also recommend restating the research questions in the Conclusion; this will remind readers of exactly what questions you’ve been focusing on and will demonstrate that you’ve definitely answered those questions.

Editor feedback: I recommend avoiding interpretation (including giving your own opinion or making a call for further research) in the early sections of this chapter. Instead, stick to answering the research questions and addressing the hypotheses. I've left comments where the text veered in this direction. Save these elements for the Discussion.

Editor feedback: On page 181, you mention two cases (sickle cell disease and Tay-Sachs) that you have not mentioned in any previous chapter . Be sure not to mention new findings in the Conclusion. Either go back to an earlier chapter and make note of these instances, or else delete the reference from the Conclusion.

Editor feedback: Much of this section takes sentences from previous sections, almost verbatim. The conclusion should use varied language and go beyond simply summarizing the main points. I have provided further comments on this in the document.

Editor feedback: Rather than comparing, contrasting and synthesizing the analyses, this section essentially summarizes the reviews. Consider focusing more on the analysis piece here.

Editor feedback: The research limitations are not discussed. Instead, the limitations of big data analytics are discussed. Consider this difference as you finalize your paper.

Editor feedback: Consider elaborating on this in the discussion section.

Editor feedback: Consider adding this aspect.

Feedback editor: You talk about 50 people who disagree with the current political situation, but you do not specify the sources that substantiate this claim. I also recommend that you look at your statement that democracy is the best form of government. The question here is “According to whom?” If this is your own opinion, you need to make that clearer.

Feedback editor: Remember that your readers haven't studied this topic as much as you have. Be sure to give them the information they need to understand your arguments. For example, at the end of the introduction, explain the terms "macropartisanship" and “deterritorialization” to ensure your readers understand these concepts. In addition, I recommend elaborating on the related studies, so your readers have a proper framework for understanding your research.

Feedback editor: In Section 4.1, you state that no respondents were satisfied with the current situation. However, in your conclusion, you say that three respondents had no opinion. Be sure to reconcile these points or make corrections if necessary.

Feedback editor: Although I understand what you want to say, you have not specifically stated what the final conclusion of your text is. You should therefore take a careful look at my comment on page 54.