The topic is: Examining Infertility: A review of the common Causes of infertility and exploring Viable treatment options.
\n5. Abstract word count should be from 250-300 words
\n6. References
\na. 20-25 is a good number of references. At this point 10 is too low for the final paper.
\nb. Use mostly primary literature.
\nc. Websites are not appropriate unless they end with (.gov) or (.org). You can use other
\nwebsites to help locate peer reviewed primary references.
\n7. APA format, this to include
\na. There should be a title page with a creative title and no author name
\nb. All references should utilize APA format (APA modification, references do not have to
\norganized in alphabetical order)
\nc. References can be older than 20 years (an APA modification)
\nd. You can use one textbook, the one we use in class (an APA modification)
\ne. In text, citations should appear in parenthesis (5) or superscript5. (an APA modification)
\n8. Figures
\na. Need at least one figure\/table
\nb. Figures should appear in the results section
\nc. If you decide to put figures at the end of the paper, add an Appendix section. Also, refer
\nto the Appendix in the body of the paper or in the legend of the figure.
\nd. All figures should have a legend.
\n9. If you decide to include personal experience that is okay, but it should not take up the entire
\npaper.<\/p>\n
I. Title: Examining Infertility: A review of the common causes of infertility and exploring viable
\ntreatment options.
\nII. Abstract:
\na. explaining what infertility is and what is commonly associated with it.
\nb. Examining the issue of infertility and introducing its prevalence
\nc. Description of the purpose (preventing infertility) and overview on finding ways to
\ncombat infertility with medical procedures
\nd. Restating most important conclusions\/discussion of the paper
\nIII. Introduction
\na. Introducing the issue of infertility and its prevalence
\nb. Exploring possible causes as well as recent trajectories of infertility
\nc. Loosely describing potential treatments
\nd. Restating the purpose of combating infertility
\nIV. Main Analysis
\na. Potential subtopics:
\ni. structure, function and associated pathways of the reproductive system
\nii. causes of infertility: genetic, chemical, physical causes, basic description on their
\ninteractions with reproductive systems
\niii. comparing and contrasting healthy vs nonfunctional reproductive systems
\niv. treatment options\/other options: artificial insemination, adoption etc
\nv. describing new findings\/research
\nvi. prevention
\nmainly organized thematically with iv. Organized methodologically
\nV. Conclusion:
\na. A summary of the introduction as well as a deeper analysis of the most effective
\ntreatment options
\nb. Presentation of relevant data and associated recommendations
\nc. Revealing the main findings
\nVI. References
\na. List of references in apa format<\/p>\n
The former is an outline that I created as a rough draft. You have creative freedom to change this as appropriate, but keep the topic and general structure (abstract, discussion, introduction, references, conclusion etc).<\/p>\n
This is a copy of the rubric he title identifies the theme, study, or nature of the work. As the reviewer, you immediately
\nunderstood what the paper was about and what the author\u2019s thesis might be. (Scale 1 to 5.)
\n2. In the abstract, the purpose or objectives of study, hypothesis, and conclusions are well stated
\nand present. As the reviewer, you immediately understood what the paper was about and what
\nthe author thesis might be. (Scale 1 to 5.)
\n3. The abstract works in concert with genre conventions (structure, format, style) to summarize
\nthe body and conclusion of the composition well. The abstract was about 250 words and there
\nwere no quotes or citations. (Scale 1 to 5.)
\n4. The abstract could stand alone away from the whole paper. The abstract lacked ambiguity. As
\nthe reviewer, you could determine immediately what the paper was about, what the major
\npoints were going to be and what the author\u2019s conclusions were. (Scale 1 to 5.)
\n5. Provide comments for the author concerning the abstract of the paper. What recommendations
\nfor revision of the abstract would you suggest? What did the author do right and what did the
\nauthor do wrong in your opinion. The author is looking for an explanation as to why you scored
\nthe way you did, so say something more than \u201cgood job\u201d or \u201cneeds work.\u201d Justify your scores
\nfrom above. (Free Response \u2013 minimum of 20 words. Don\u2019t be stingy.)
\n6. The introduction flows in predictable and logical sequences, guiding the reader and establishing
\ndirection of the narrative. It is not merely a repetition of the abstract. Instead the author clearly
\nuses the introduction to prepare the reader for the discussion portion of the paper. (Scale 1 to
\n5.)
\n7. The introduction provides sufficient background for the reader, preparing the reader for the
\ndiscussion. Background information includes both general knowledge and specific knowledge
\nabout the topic to prepare the reader for the material that is to be presented in the discussion.
\nThe introduction propels the reader forward and neither patronizes nor antagonizes the reader.
\n(Scale 1 to 5.)
\n8. In the introduction, the purpose or objectives of study are well stated and present. The
\nintroduction outlines what will be discussed in the discussion and provides the rationale for the
\ndirection of the paper. It does not merely state \u201cthe purpose of the paper is…\u201d (Scale 1 to 5.)
\n9. Provide comments for the author concerning the introduction to the paper. What
\nrecommendations for revision of the introduction would you suggest? What did the author do
\nright and what did the author do wrong in your opinion. The author is looking for an explanation
\nas to why you scored the way you did, so say something more than \u201cgood job\u201d or \u201cneeds work.\u201d
\nJustify your scores from above. (Free Response \u2013 minimum of 20 words. Don\u2019t be stingy.)
\n10. The discussion section presents and interprets evidence from sources appropriately. The author
\ngoes beyond mere repetition of the source material but appropriately synthesizes information
\nto create a narrative. The author appropriately \u201cconnects the dots\u201d to create a clear picture of
\nhis\/her theme. (Scale 1 to 5.)
\n11. The discussion anticipates and meets the reader\u2019s needs and expectations with regard to the
\nsupport material and elaboration of detail. The composition provides the reader with enough
\ndetails so that they do not need to refer back to previous sections nor provide too much detail
\nto confuse the reader within a forest of text. Explanations are made where needed and details
\nexcluded when unnecessary. (Scale 1 to 5.)
\n12. The discussion answers the questions outlined in the assignment. (You will have to look up the
\nassignment question if you wrote on something else). The author\u2019s writing clearly demonstrates
\nthat they understand the subject of their paper and have expanded their understanding of the
\nsubject beyond the general physiology student (e.g. beyond what might be presented in a
\ntextbook.) (Scale 1 to 5.)
\n13. Provide comments for the author concerning the discussion to the paper. What
\nrecommendations for revision of the discussion would you suggest? What did the author do
\nright and what did the author do wrong in your opinion. The author is looking for an explanation
\nas to why you scored the way you did, so say something more than \u201cgood job\u201d or \u201cneeds work.\u201d
\nJustify your scores from above. (Free Response \u2013 minimum of 20 words. Don\u2019t be stingy.)
\n14. The conclusion section appropriately synthesizes or refutes the evidence from the source
\nmaterial. Conclusions are clearly stated and supported by the evidence presented in the
\ndiscussion. The conclusion anticipates and meets the reader\u2019s needs and expectations by tying
\nall the details together to provide a clear picture of what has been discovered. The conclusion
\nsummarizes the keys points of the discussions (and does not merely repeat them.) Moreover, it
\nuses those key points to provide a picture of how the subject relates to the broader context of
\nphysiology. (Scale 1 to 5.)
\n15. The discussion and conclusion sections together exhibit a unified pattern of exposition, analysis,
\nand\/or argument. The conclusions proceed with authority and\/or originality from the discussion
\nand the whole composition succeeds in responding to the questions established by the
\nassignment. (Scale 1 to 5.)
\n16. Provide comments for the author concerning the conclusion to the paper. What
\nrecommendations for revision of the conclusion would you suggest? What did the author do
\nright and what did the author do wrong in your opinion. The author is looking for an explanation
\nas to why you scored the way you did, so say something more than \u201cgood job\u201d or \u201cneeds work.\u201d
\nJustify your scores from above. (Free Response \u2013 minimum of 20 words. Don\u2019t be stingy.)
\n17. The text of the composition goes beyond repetition or summary of sources. The sources are
\nintegrated into the writing to add authority to the writing. Facts were appropriately cited. Direct
\nquotes and paraphrases were avoided. Statements such as \u201cAccording to Dr. So and so…\u201d were
\nnot included. (Scale 1 to 5.)
\n18. The composition uses only appropriate sources. Secondary sources such as review articles are
\nfound primarily in the introduction with the remainder of the source material consisting of
\nresearch journal articles. The author did not use inappropriate sources such as Wikipedia, web
\nsites, popular journals, magazines, or textbooks. The primary resources are relevant because
\nthey were published after 2000. (Scale 1 to 5.)
\n19. In-text citations and end-of-text references are appropriately cited, using the correct format as
\nlaid out in the instructions. (Yes, you need to go back and look at the instructions.) If the paper
\nuses MLA style, it is unacceptable. (Scale 1 to 5.)
\n20. Provide comments for the author concerning the references and citations to the paper. What
\nrecommendations for revision would you suggest? What did the author do right and what did
\nthe author do wrong in your opinion. Be sure you understand what was expected by looking at
\nthe assignment instructions. The author is looking for an explanation as to why you scored the
\nway you did, so say something more than \u201cgood job\u201d or \u201cneeds work.\u201d Justify your scores from
\nabove. (Free Response \u2013 minimum of 20 words. Don\u2019t be stingy.)
\n21. The paper conforms to the instructions on formatting, style, structure, and sectioning. The
\npaper demonstrates that the author read and followed the assignment instructions. (Scale 1 to
\n5.)
\n22. Charts, tables, or figures and accompanying referential text provide enough information for the
\nreader to understand without referring to other parts of the paper. Note that the figure needs
\nto be cited unless created by the author. As the reviewer, you should expect some type of visual
\naid in order for author to achieve maximal points. Choose whether the visual aid was
\nappropriate. If you feel that the author’s approach was sufficient, mark it as acceptable (or
\nbetter.) (Scale 1 to 5.)
\n23. If figures were used, figure titles and explanatory legend text is included and is meaningful. The
\nlegend text was written by the author (and appropriately cited) and helped to tie the figure to
\nthe paper. If no figures were used and you felt that it was not necessary that the author use
\nfigures, mark this as acceptable (or better.) If the figure legend text was copied directly from it\u2019s
\nsource, it is unacceptable. (Scale 1 to 5.)
\n24. In general, the voice, tone, and level of formality of the paper are consistent and well-suited to
\nthe audience or purpose. In short, the paper reads like the scientific literature and demonstrates
\nthat the author understood their subject. (Scale 1 to 5.)
\n25. In general, language usage by the author impressed the reader. Language exhibited clear,
\nconcise polished prose. Sentences were supple, varied, and clear with few noticeable editing
\nerrors. The paper was not flowery nor did it read like an English composition. The paper was
\nwell written and interesting to read. (Scale 1 to 5.)
\n26. In general, the composition flows in predictable and logical sequences (makes transitions
\nbetween most paragraphs and sections). Most paragraphs begin with a topic sentence and
\ntransitions guide reader from thought to thought. The paper was pleasant to read. (Scale 1 to
\n5.)
\n27. The composition exhibits unified patterns of exposition, analysis, and\/or argument from
\nbeginning to end. The introduction prepares the reader for the discussion, the discussion
\npresents the evidence, and the conclusions are presented with well-established authority
\nand\/or originality. Moreover, references are appropriate and correctly used. Overall, the paper
\nsucceeds in responding to the assignment task as a well-written, unified composition. (Scale 1 to
\n5.)
\n28. Provide comments for the author concerning the general structure of the paper. What
\nrecommendations for revision would you suggest that you have not suggested elsewhere? What
\ndid the author do right and what did the author do wrong, in your opinion. How was the
\ngrammar and writing style? Did the author follow the general instructions for the paper? (Be
\nsure you understand what was expected by looking at the assignment instructions. ) The author
\nis looking for an explanation as to why you scored the way you did, so say something more than
\n\u201cgood job\u201d or \u201cneeds work.\u201d Justify your scores from above. (Free Response \u2013 minimum of 20
\nwords. Don\u2019t be stingy.)
\nSum of scales: ___ \/ 22 = ______ (score)25. In general, language usage by the author impressed the reader. Language exhibited clear,
\nconcise polished prose. Sentences were supple, varied, and clear with few noticeable editing
\nerrors. The paper was not flowery nor did it read like an English composition. The paper was
\nwell written and interesting to read. (Scale 1 to 5.)
\n26. In general, the composition flows in predictable and logical sequences (makes transitions
\nbetween most paragraphs and sections). Most paragraphs begin with a topic sentence and
\ntransitions guide reader from thought to thought. The paper was pleasant to read. (Scale 1 to
\n5.)
\nThere will be two files attached. The first is an example given to us which is written well and it’s structure and writing should be used as a guide. The second is my own rough draft which is incomplete as you will see. Thank you so much! <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The topic is: Examining Infertility: A review of the common Causes of infertility and exploring Viable treatment options. 5. Abstract word count should be from 250-300 words 6. References a. 20-25 is a good number of references. At this point 10 is too low for the final paper. b. Use mostly primary literature. c. Websites […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"disciplines":[40],"paper_types":[],"tagged":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/21439"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/questions"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21439"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/21439\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21439"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"disciplines","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/disciplines?post=21439"},{"taxonomy":"paper_types","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/paper_types?post=21439"},{"taxonomy":"tagged","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.writemyessays.app\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tagged?post=21439"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}