Lab Report Review

Review of Methods
Briefly comment on whether the report author has written this section to someone familiar with the field, adequately described the experiments and samples, referenced published methods with changes noted, etc. A sentence or two should suffice.
Review of Results
Review should include consideration of all items listed in the “Results” guidelines. Identify items or portions done particularly well, and others in most need of improvement. Would you have presented or highlighted data any differently?
Review of Discussion
Review should include consideration of all items listed in the “Discussion” guidelines. Identify items or portions done particularly well, and others in most need of improvement. Are there additional comparisons or discussion points that might have been made? Are there different comparisons that might have been made? Have the discussion questions been well integrated into text with logical flow?
An example of an additional comparison: “The author compared measured valued to expected influent of the Dayton Wastewater Treatment Plant. However, the report could have also compared removal percentages…”
An example of a different comparison: “The author compared the lab results to typical drinking water results, but could have used a specific town’s water quality report values.”
Overall quality
Briefly comment on characteristics of the report’s overall quality. This might include strength of conclusions (or disagreement), proper citation and referencing, formatting, grammar, and so on.