(Letter Head of the DepEd Extension Office, formerly District Office)

MRC FEEDBACK FORM

Research Study Code: ________

Evaluator Code: ________
Evaluation for:  Research Proposal  Full Manuscript

Guidelines to Giving Feedback

Always keep in mind that the main purpose of feedback is to help authors improve their work. Aim to give feedback that is detailed,
focused, relevant to the publication, and useful to the author.

1. Stay focused – only give feedback on the paper you're commenting on.
2. Be constructive – keep your feedback specific and issue focused.
3. Keep it actionable – focus on a particular aspect or section of the paper that you think needs work.
4. Take your time – don’t underestimate the time it takes to carefully analyze the paper. Take your time to read the paper and
summarize your comments.
5. Structure your feedback – a great way to give focused feedback is to break it down by section. You can always separate them
into “major” vs “minor” points if you have a lot of feedback to give.
6. Focus on the content –if you do want to provide tips on the grammar or style, consider sending them to the author privately.
7. If the paper is good, say so – but be sure to say why you liked it.
8. Be polite – keep your comments polite and objective, even if you disagree with the author's conclusions.

Here are some questions you can think about answering when you give your feedback:

1. Do the title and abstract cover the main aspects of the work?
2. Is the introduction easy to follow and does it provide a hypothesis or aim of the study?
3. Does the methods section give enough details to repeat the experiments?
4. Does the results section give enough detail to understand the experiments?
5. Given the data that was obtained in this study, did the authors perform all the logical analyses? Did they include the proper
controls?
6. Does the discussion address the main findings, and does it give proper recognition to similar work in this field?
7. In general, is the paper easy to follow and does it have a logical flow?
8. Did the authors make all their data (e.g. sequence reads, code, questionnaires used) available?
9. Is this paper relevant or novel and an advancement of the field, or have other people done very similar work?
10. Is the scientific question well-posed and the hypotheses clearly formulated?
11. Are the methods appropriate to answer the main research question?
12. Is the data analysis appropriate?
13. Are the conclusions and abstract in line with the results?
14. Do you have any suggestions for further explorations or studies?

Research Gate. (n.d.). Guidelines for providing feedback on preprints. Retrieved from https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/
Guidelines+for+providing+feedback+on+preprints

Feedback:

Initials of MRC Secretariat: ____

Feedback:

Recommendations:

Initials of MRC Secretariat: ____