GENCHEM2 ILT Journal Critiquing

Name: Daniel L. Ramos III

Title of the Research Study:

Comparative Analysis of Air Particulates Present in Diliman Preparatory School Main Campus

The study entitled "Comparative Analysis of Air Particulates Present in Diliman Preparatory School Main
Campus" is a descriptive research comparing air particulates among the facilities of the aforementioned
school. It follows a simple premise of collecting air particles using the adhesive property of petroleum jelly.
Its content can be summarized in the following abstract:

Air particulates, commonly known as dust, are the most visible and obvious forms of air
pollution. Establishments with high traffic and activity such as schools suffer from the
surplus of air particulates. The Diliman Preparatory School (DPS), specifically, suffers from
air pollution due to its proximity to the Commonwealth Avenue which is known to be a
polluted road. To enhance the awareness of the people in the DPS, especially the
maintenance department, of potential pollutants, this study compares the different air
particulates present in the Diliman Preparatory School main campus. An air particulate
collector was made by spreading 0.5g of petroleum jelly on a 5”x5” plastic cover attached
to a bond paper. The mass of the collectors were then measured. A string was used to
hang the air particulate collector in the 17 selected rooms. After three days of exposure,
the final masses were obtained and the air particulate collectors were observed. A rating
scale was used to describe the appearance of the collector. The HS Library is ranked first
in amount of pollution since its collector captured the most air particulates and has obtained
an additional 0.2g. The room which ranked the last (out of 17 rooms) is the HS APSA Office
that lost 0.1g in the final weight of its collector.
While following the expected format, the research paper still suffers from many novice mistakes, both in
form and in content. Thus, the critique is divided into two parts. The first part discusses how the authors
communicate their ideas while the second part discusses the validity of their research. Both of these
aspects are crucial in writing a strong research paper.

Critique of the form

Minimal errors
Throughout the paper, minimal errors can be found such as spelling and grammar. For example, in the
Introduction part, it states that "Each of us could help in maintain our place clean..." which is erroneous.
The authors ought to change the word maintain to maintaining. The word through is also misspelled as thru
in the same section. Another misspelling can be found in the Review of Related Literature and Studies
where the authors misspelled preferred as preffered. In the Results section, the word cloths is misspelled
as colths.
Other than the spelling errors, the authors also wrote in an informal tone at some parts contrary to the
expected academic writing style. The Background of the Study section contains two use of first person
pronouns ("We cannot avoid..." and "Each of us..."). The use of contractions is also present in the text
("Sometimes, we can't have a totally clean..."). Using informal tone diminishes the objectivity of the paper
and, thus, is not recommended.
While these errors don't gravely affect the content nor the comprehensibility of the text, they can be easily
fixed with a thorough proofreading. Because it can easily be remedied, the lack of proofreading reveals lazy
writing which dilutes the impact of the paper.

More severe offenses

While the errors in the previous section may be relatively trivial, the following comments gravely affect the
reading experience. As the research writer, one ought to communicate original thoughts seamlessly through
unified and coherent text. This paper does not exhibit those traits.
For example, most ideas are expressed repetitively and with no coherence. Consider the literature review.
The review starts with a discussion about air particulates. It then, out of nowhere, defined air with no
transition markers from the first paragraph. After the brief discussion about air, the text discusses particle
size. Then, the text repeats another definition of particulates in the following paragraph.
The lack of proper structure is evident as there is no clear progression of topics. The main ideas of each
paragraph randomly shift with no proper transition. This lack of structure is detrimental to the reading
experience as it adds friction to comprehending the main points of the author.
Aside from the lack of unity and coherence, there is also a lack of original thought from the authors. They
did not synthesize information and, as a result, the literature review seemed like a list of definitions. The
authors simply echoed pre-existing text without contextualizing it to the paper or connecting ideas between
literature; both of which are key characteristics of a literature review.
However, these two problems (lack of synthesis and lack of coherence) are actually a symptom of an even
larger problem—plagiarism. Specifically, the paragraph

Particles in the atmosphere, which range in size from about one-half millimeter (the size
of sand or drizzle) down to molecular dimensions, are made up of an amazing variety of
materials and discrete objects that may consist of either solids or liquid droplets.
is directly lifted from Stanley Manahan's (2001) Fundamentals of Environmental Chemistry. While the
authors cited the source, it is not an excuse to copy the excerpt verbatim. Research writers should
paraphrase or summarize the original text alongside the proper citation. Direct quotes can be used if and
only if the specific phrasing is relevant to the author's point. After the paraphrasing or the summary, the
research writer should bring back the focus on the relevance of the source to their paper. This literature
review did not consider those at all and failed to be a proper literature review in every aspect.

Why should scientists focus on language?

So far, a major portion of the critique has discussed how the author uses language. It is easy to dismiss
these criticisms because, after all, this text is a science research paper and not an English essay.
Regardless of the subject matter, however, researchers of all disciplines should strive for effective
communication. If scientists don't communicate their studies well to their peers, then the target audience
and other stakeholders of the research would not appreciate its content. This lack of connection from the
author to the stakeholders therefore makes the study useless. Thus, it is important to highlight these errors
to strengthen further the paper and to bridge the reader to the author's ideas.

Critique of the content

Validity of the method
The usefulness of the results depends on the validity of the method. If the methodology fails to meet the
expected rigor, then the results may be inconclusive. Such is the case for this research as it contains many
problems in the method.
Since the literature review is not as comprehensive as it needed to be, the methodology lacks the basis
grounded on previous body of knowledge. The study would have been stronger if the authors cited other
studies that used the same or similar procedure or, if it is not an established procedure in scholar articles,
justified their methodology with literature. For example, the researchers could have cited the adhesive
properties of petroleum jelly that makes the material suitable to capture air particulates.
This suggestion would also resolve the previous problem regarding lack of synthesis or original thought.
Citing the adhesive properties of petroleum jelly requires external sources while stating that this material is
the most appropriate in the study contextualizes information needed.
Aside from the lack of basis from literature, the method also suffers from sampling bias. Each room only
had one particulate collector. One location may not be representative of the whole room and, thus, renders
the results inconclusive. A better improvement would be having at least three samples each room so the
researchers can report averages and variability.
While the use of triangulation (using both quantitative and qualitative methods) strengthens the research,
the qualitative part of the method is questionable. Since the researchers clearly have been in these facilities,
they may have preconceived bias towards each facility that may actually be contradictory to evidence. The
authors did not provide or at least reported any countermeasures against this researcher bias.
A quick way to remedy this problem is conducting a blind test. Someone from the group would label each
collector randomly and have another member rate it. In this way, the rater judges the samples based solely
on the level of pollution, not on previously-held ideas. Another solution would be having an external party
rating the level of pollution. Either cases would mitigate the effects of confirmation and researcher bias.

Comments on the Results and Discussion

The Results and Discussion section directly answers the research question and explores further
implications. Thus, it is important for the results to be presented in an orderly fashion. The authors
successfully did this with their results. The authors did not only put the tables in the results but they also
presented significant highlights in the data through text. The researchers also provide context for and
discuss the implications of the results. For instance, the researchers hypothesized that the high school
library gathered the most particulates due to unused books collecting dust and air conditioning units
circulating them.
However, the discussion still lacks detail. Specifically, it would be advisable for them to have generalizable
conclusions. For example, the researchers could have made the connection between level of activity,
temperature, land area and how polluted an area is. Such generalizable conclusions are important to share
in the discussion part since it becomes basis for future research especially since their research is descriptive
in nature.
Results also show questionable data. Readers of the study expected a gain of mass due to the particulates.
However, five samples have a loss of mass instead. They explained that the loss is attributed to the
evaporation of the petroleum jelly. However, this is problematic to the validity of the gathered data. If there
are extraneous variables such as evaporation of petroleum jelly, then the gain (or loss) of mass does not
accurately describe the amount of particulates. To illustrate, consider a collector with a net gain of 0.1 gram.
One of two things can happen. First, the air particulates are exactly 0.1 gram. Second, air particulates are
actually more than 0.1 gram but small amounts of petroleum jelly evaporated. In either cases, the
researchers did not address this problem nor did they implement measures against error, be it random or
systematic. Such errors may be, again, mitigated by using more than one sample.
Finally, aside from the error in measurement, the researchers also have findings that are not scientifically
rigorous. Specifically in Table 2 of the results, they noted the observed particulates. There are a lot of
assumptions in this data. It is hard to determine whether a piece of dust is wood fiber or something else
that resembles wood fiber. Same principle applies to other particulates such as cloth, cotton, eyelash,
scraped paint and scraped metal. To be scientifically rigorous means testing them chemically. Another
suggestion would be removing this subjective part altogether.
Comments on the remaining part of the paper
The conclusion succinctly summarizes the results and ties directly to the problem statement. It does not
add any new information and only paraphrased pre-existing information. However, the recommendation
section has glaring problems.
First, any gaps in the current research (such as the lack of samples per room) should be addressed in the
Scope and Limitations and should be suggested in Recommendations. However, the two sections in the
paper do not match. The authors did not mention the quick duration of collection in the Limitations yet they
suggested to lengthen it in the Recommendations. The same goes for their other recommendations.
This problem also shows the insufficiency of their Scope and Limitations. It is not a sufficient description of
their limitations. They only mentioned the limitation in locality ("limited to... the main campus of Diliman
Preparatory School") and failed to address other problems in methodology.
Lastly, the recommendation is not expanded upon so it does not really help further. The researchers should
discuss how the recommended steps solve the current problems and strengthen the research. Listing them
without much clarification is lazy writing.

Miscellaneous comments
Some parts of the paper exhibit unsupported claims or subjective opinions. For example, the authors posit
that, even through constant maintenance, air particulates cannot be avoided. However, they did not provide
evidence to support the claim. This statement is followed by another claim that everyone can "help in
[maintaining] our places clean for us to live and breathe freely". Not only is the statement irrelevant to the
whole study and the tone unscholarly but it also a subjective judgement that had no basis.

Conclusion
Overall, the premise of the research is simple enough to be executed yet still provides valuable insight.
However, it does suffer from many methodological flaws and a few problems in structure. Possibly, the
worst offense in the paper is the literature review. It lacks details. Structure-wise, the text jumps from one
idea to another with no proper transition. Worst of all, a major chunk of the review is plagiarized. Thus, the
readers do not have a sense of where current body of knowledge stands and how the authors place their
research. They also do not synthesize the information and inject their original thoughts. In short, the
researchers see the literature review as a list of definitions with no added context to their study.
As someone who had critiqued papers from juniors, I often witnessed these common errors and misguided
perception of literature review. Hopefully, in the future, novice researchers consider these changes and see
the research paper as a writing endeavor that warrants skills such as making coherent, cohesive and unified
text. It is never just a science requirement. Research is just as much communication as it is science.

Criteria

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Content of the Journal Review
Thouroughness of the Discussion
Organization of Thoughts
Format and Mechanics
TOTAL / 25