Proposal Review-SW13

Filed Under (Uncategorized) by Tuck Stapor on 08-12-2010 and tagged , , ,

Proposal #1 (Buescher) is centered on the invasive Australian Spotted Jellyfish Transport.  Their paper is focused on treating ballast waters that contain this invasive species.  Their research will look for the most effective method of ballast water treatment: electrochemical disinfection, sonication, crumb rubber filtration, and biocide.  Our recommendation for this paper is to include the idea of cost effectiveness in your question section.  Also, make sure that the methodology section is understandable to the reader.

Proposal #2 (Castillo) focuses on a specific type of ballast water treatment, SeaKleen.  This proposal’s goal is to find out how safe this treatment method is to surrounding environments.  The research will test ballast water containing the SeaKleen chemical when it is released into the surrounding waters and will see if the SeaKleen chemical will affect the aquatic ecosystems.  Our may concern for this proposal is that there are a lot of logical leaps within the paper.  For example,  the writer brings about attractive characteristics of the chemical only to contradict these characteristics later on in the paper, which made it confusing for the reader to follow.

Proposal #3 (Lacy) focuses on a different type of ballast water treatment, the deoxygenation method.  The research will test the effectiveness of deoxygenation in reducing the number of aquatic invasive species transported to foreign waters.  The study will use a boat for 15 days, reduce the amount of oxygen in the ballast water, and then record the amount of species that are living and dead following the voyage.

We believe that Proposal #3 is the strongest proposal.  The writing is easily understandable and does not contain any leaps in logic.  The background information is very strong, clear and informative.  The rationale illustrates the importance and need for the research study.  The study itself does not seem as if it will be harmful for surrounding ecosystems or will cause lasting problems to the environment.  The methodology clearly answers the question, and the research applications for the future provide a logical next step to begin putting this ballast prevention treatment into practice.

One main concern for the proposal is that the objective is vague.  The writer uses the word effective often but should specify exactly how that is defined.  The writer should also consider explaining how pumping nitrogen reduces oxygen levels.  Also, there are a few unclear sentences in the final paragraph that the writer should go back and revise.  Overall though, a well thought out research proposal.

Comments are closed.