Peer Review and Revised Thesis

Peer review is by far one of the most effective tools for writing improvement. It is one of the most popular processes in the writing of books and research papers for a reason. Through reading the works of a like-minded colleague, it gives insight as to what your paper might be missing and what you may have that theirs does not. So it does not surprise me how much it helped my QRG.

For the most parth the feedback was all positive, I am unsure whether this is a testament to my writing skills or that my editors may have been a little too shy to really tear into my paper. Either way the jist if referred to clarity. When writing about a topic I know very well or have a vested personal interest (like the astronomy topic written about in the QRG), I have a tendency to just "go off" on this page and begin writing every little thing in an organized ramble. Though this allows me to get a nice flow through my paper, many times I overlook doublespeak or fragmented phrases with vague reference points. Allowing another set of eyes that do not hold my inherent biases toward my own stylistic choices helped free me of this. Though it did not help with my thesis in specific, it definitely added transparency to the rest of my essay. Thus, my thesis statement remains unchanged:

"For decades, it has been the common notion in astronomy that the universe is expanding, and that we, Earth, are expanding with it. Last year, however, one scientist name Christof Wetterich dared to pursue more when he discovered something that spoke otherwise – a non-expanding universe. Although the information looks promising, it has to overcome the difficult obstacle that is many years of precedent knowledge in opposition."