Each topic+approach group will read and review a proposal written on a different topic (I changed this from the original design so that everyone has the chance to learn something new). The goal is to provide constructive feedback that will allow the group submitting the proposal to submit the strongest final proposal possible. I encourage you to discuss the proposal within your group, but each student should submit a separate peer review document, rather than a group document. You can use this sheet as a template—I am including the guidance from the original assignment along with specific questions you may wish to address. Within a given section, you can respond to the questions individually, or you can write a paragraph that summarizes your review of that particular section. Try to provide feedback There is space for additional comments at the end.Title of proposal being reviewed:Name of reviewer: A.Specific AimsDescribe what the specific research proposed is intended to accomplish, e.g., to test a stated hypothesis, create a novel design, solve a specific problem, or develop new technology. •Is the proposal asking a significant or important question?•Are the specific goal(s) of project clearly and concisely stated? •Is there an identifiable hypothesis?B.Background and SignificanceBriefly describe the background leading to the present proposal and identify the gaps that the project is intended to fill. State the importance and relevance of the specific research described in this proposal by putting it into a broader context (who cares and why?). •Did the authors an overview of question, including reference to previous studies that present studies are attempting to replicate or build upon?•Did the authors adequately explain the significance of the question being asked?•Is it clear how the proposed project will challenge or advance our current understanding of some aspect of endocrinology?C.Research Design and MethodsDescribe the research design and the procedures to be used and discuss why you made specific choices in your experimental design, including subjects, independent variables and dependent variables.•Was there a well-defined and clearly articulated testable hypothesis/hypotheses?•Was the experimental protocol clearly described?•Were the experimental methods appropriate for addressing the hypothesis?•Do the proposed experiments adhere to appropriate standards for good experimental design? (adheres to ethical standards for use of human or animals subjects, as relevant; controls present and sufficient; potential confounding variables acknowledged and/or minimized, etc.)•Was there sufficient detail to understand the basic experimental plan?oSubjects or model system used (species, sex, age or weight)oDescription of independent variable(s): detailed information on experimental manipulation(s)oDependent variable(s): identified what was being measured and how measured•Was there anything that you did not understand or wished to have more detailed information about?D.Anticipated ResultsState the expected outcome of your experiment, if your hypothesis is supported.•Was the predicted outcome clearly stated? predicted outcome•Based on the background information provided, do the anticipated results represent a reasonable outcome for the proposed experiments?E.Literature CitedProvide complete citation information for all references cited in your proposal, using correct CSE format. Please use Name-Year format for your in-text citations and reference list.•Was all borrowed information cited sufficiently?•Were the citations were appropriate for information cited (i.e. did the text in the proposal accurately reflect the content of the work cited)?•Were in-text citations were formatted properly in (author, date) format?•Was reference information was complete and formatted properly according to CSE formatting guidelines?•Were the sources of good quality (mostly primary research; from peer-reviewed publications)?F.Writing•Was the paper well written, with good grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc.?•Were the ideas and concepts clearly and concisely expressed?•Were the ideas were organized well?