Content of review 1, reviewed on June 01, 2021
- In the abstract, the aim, method, and study results are clear.
- the title of the paper is clear, informative of the topic of the paper but it does not inform about the rusts found in the study.
References are relevant, appropriate, and recent.
Background literature is comprehensive and includes relevant and updated studies.
- Definitions of key concepts are provided, as well as theories
- Limitations and confusion/controversies in previous literature are provided
- Shortcomings of previous studies are provided and liked to how these will be overcome with new methodologies used in the study
- the introduction clearly states the study aims and hypotheses
- the research question is of small-moderate importance, it does not make a substantial advancement to the literature
- One of the aims of the study is to explore whether subjective socio-economic status is a predictor of perceptions of ageing, yet the study is cross-sectional.
The introduction is clear and material is included following a logical progression.
The variables measures are well-defined and measures used in the study are appropriate
- One of the key measures (AARC-20) has not been validated
- Subject selection in clear
The methodology is explained in detail
The results section is clear
- Tables are clear, with clear headings and footnotes including essential details
There is no repetition of information between the text (results section) and tables
At the beginning of the discussion study aims are summarized but the study hypotheses are not restate, they could have summarized them to improve clarity
- Study results are well linked to previous research and theories
- references used are relevant
- The conclusion is clear and conveys useful information
Source
© 2021 the Reviewer.
References
N., E. A., A., B. J., D., N. S. 2019. It's "the Joneses": the influence of objective and subjective socioeconomic status on subjective perceptions of aging. European Journal of Ageing.