Talk:Achilles Tendon: Difference between revisions

(Peer Review)
 
mNo edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
== Peer Review ==
== Peer Review ==


== Reviewer Details<br> ==
== Reviewer Details<br> ==


#Name of Reviewer:&nbsp;Naomi O'Reilly
1. Name of Reviewer:&nbsp;


#Name of Reviewer Credentials (PhD, MPH, etc.):&nbsp;BSc (Hons) Sport Science, BSc (Hons) Physiotherapy, PGDiP Teaching &amp; Learning, MSc Adapted Physical Activity
*Naomi O'Reilly


#Title of Reviewer (Professor, Program Director, etc.):&nbsp;Classification Manager
2. Name of Reviewer Credentials (PhD, MPH, etc.):&nbsp;
#School/Institution/Clinic:&nbsp;Paralympics Ireland
 
#May we have your permission to publish your review openly on Physiopedia?: Yes&nbsp;
*BSc (Hons) Sport Science, BSc (Hons) Physiotherapy, PGDiP Teaching &amp; Learning, MSc Adapted Physical Activity
#May we have your permission to recognise you in the article as a reviewer?: Yes<br>
 
3. Title of Reviewer (Professor, Program Director, etc.):&nbsp;
 
*Classification Manager
 
4. School/Institution/Clinic:&nbsp;
 
*Paralympics Ireland
 
5. May we have your permission to publish your review openly on Physiopedia?: Yes&nbsp;  
 
6. May we have your permission to recognise you in the article as a reviewer?: Yes<br>


== Review Questions<br> ==
== Review Questions<br> ==

Revision as of 01:24, 25 March 2015

Peer Review[edit source]

Reviewer Details
[edit source]

1. Name of Reviewer: 

  • Naomi O'Reilly

2. Name of Reviewer Credentials (PhD, MPH, etc.): 

  • BSc (Hons) Sport Science, BSc (Hons) Physiotherapy, PGDiP Teaching & Learning, MSc Adapted Physical Activity

3. Title of Reviewer (Professor, Program Director, etc.): 

  • Classification Manager

4. School/Institution/Clinic: 

  • Paralympics Ireland

5. May we have your permission to publish your review openly on Physiopedia?: Yes 

6. May we have your permission to recognise you in the article as a reviewer?: Yes

Review Questions
[edit source]

1. Date of Review: 

  • 25/03/2015

2. Physiopedia Page Title:

  • Achilles Tendon

3. In a sentence please outline your general impression of this article:

4. What are the strengths of this article?

5. What areas of this article could be improved?

6. Is the content on the page comprehensive and appropriately structured?

7. Is the page written in an appropriate style for practicing clinicians?

8. Are the key points made on the page referenced correctly?

9. Are all the appropriate issues and arguments included in the page?

10. Are any key and recent pieces of research missing from the page?

11. Did you find any errors in the content? (Please review the article for accuracy and correct any factual errors as well as any misleading or

inaccurate content. You do not need to correct grammatical and spelling errors.)

12. Are there any topics that are not included in the article/topic that you would like to see?

13. Are there any topics that you feel should be covered in greater or less detail?

14. Did you feel the content was current? If not, how could it be more up-to-date?

15. Finally, would you use this article in your teaching or clinical work? Please state the reasons why or why not?


Please record your suggestions to improve the page below:

Updates
[edit source]

1. Have you made the required amendments/updates to the Physiopedia page being reviewed here? Yes