Reviewer’s name:

Calista Kee, Elijah Polanco, Tarneem Gabr  

What topic is this group reviewing? 

The group is reviewing the determinants that influence public confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine, focusing mainly on clinical trials and conspiracy theories associated with political, social, and historical factors. 

Does the Literature Review include the following? (Yes or No, or explain) 

• Cover Page: No it doesn’t. The literature starts at the abstract.
• Abstract: Yes, its first section is the abstract.
• Introduction: Yes, right after the abstract the introduction starts.
• Conclusion: Yes, the last section before the references page is the conclusion.
• References Page: Yes, at the end of the literature review there is a reference page with over 20 sources.
• At least three sources per section (if not, list the topic/section where this is not the case): Yes, each section has at least three sources.
• In-text citations in APA style? Yes, they follow the conventions of APA style.

Are there three or four sections with clear topics/ headers? List each focus here: 

• The Politicalization of the COVID-19 Vaccine: The Role of President Trump and the Spread of Misinformation
• Social Determinants of COVID Vaccine Hesitancy: Communities Rejecting Vaccination
• The History of the Anti-Vax Movement: Differing Viewpoints surrounding Public Confidence
• Vaccine Safety, Efficacy, and Quality: A Conversation of Ethics and Anti-Vaccination Sentiments 

Describe the tone of the literature review. Is it consistent throughout? Are there shifts in point of view or level of formality? Does it read like a unified review or three-four distinct perspectives? Explain in a few sentences.

The tone of the literature review remains professional throughout the paper. Each section seems to flow logically from one part to the next, and the paper seems as if it is one unified paper. Each section presents related and relevant information from a variety of different sources to allow each part to work in a cohesive manner. 

Are the sources mostly peer-reviewed? Some topics may require non-peer reviewed sources. Does it seem like the group made the appropriate effort at finding peer-reviewed sources?

Many of the sources are from medical journals and reputable media sources such as the New York Times and Washington Post. However, some sources such as CNN, thenewatlantis.com, forbes.com, and usatoday.com may be less scholarly and do not count as peer-reviewed.

In order of their appearance, describe each section and how it explains its respective texts. Do the articles connect to one another or are they merely summarized? Are the sources fairly summarized or is there an apparent bias or opinion? 

• This section discusses how Donald Trump influenced and used the media during his time as President to sway the Conservative population to take COVID-19 less seriously and to lack trust in the vaccine. The sources are relevant and well-summarized.
•  This section describes hesitancy to vaccinate in both the Latinx and African American communities because of previous negative experiences with government and scientific research (Tuskegee Study and The Eugenic Sterilization Program). Sources are efficient, relevant, and well-summarized.
•  The third section analyzes the trend in vaccine reluctance and how it’s been around for much longer than just recently in the wake of the current pandemic. Sources are relevant and well-summarized.
•  The final section breaks down the question of whether or not vaccines actually are safe, by breaking down the process of how a vaccine comes about and gets approved. Sources are relevant and well-summarized.

Is there too much repetitive information between the sections? How could the sections be more distinct from one another? Explain in a few sentences either way. 

There is not too much repeated information between sections. As one section ends and another one starts a new topic is brought up and the previous topic is not mentioned again. The fifth section about the anti-vax movement seems to be a mix of the previous two sections, and can be made more distinct by adding something else. They could also just get rid of that section and split up its information between the two previous sections.

Does the order and organization of the sections make sense? Should they be reordered or refocused? Explain and/or make suggestions. 

The order of the sections make sense in the overall literature review. However, some sections can be refocused. The fifth section almost seems to just analyze the previous two sections, only adding information about the history of the anti-vax movement. One thing that was done well in that section was a table from Gale opposing views collection, but even in that table there is a part at the end that is just blanking, making it awkward.

References Page 

• Are sources in APA format? Yes.
• Are sources in alphabetical order? Almost, with only one source not being alphabetized.
• Are sources formatted consistently? Yes, the sources are consistently formatted.

How does the document look aesthetically? Explain how it can be improved. 

• Neat? Yes the document is neat with clear separation between sections.
• Same font throughout? The same font is used throughout the literature review, with only the section headers being in bold.
• Clear section headers? The section headers are clear, in bold, and numbered so that the literature review is easy to read.

Describe the best features of this literature review in a few sentences.

The organization of this peer review makes it easy to find relevant information. The use of headings and figures to summarize the information in an effective way makes this paper easier to read while still looking professional. There is also an abundant use of statistics to provide researched and factual information to the readers which furthers the purpose of this literature review.

Describe how this literature needs to be improved in a few sentences.

The fifth section can definitely be made more specific to a different subtopic rather than a sort of continuation from the earlier sections of the paper. Also, we think more reputable sources may be used as news outlets such as CNN and USAtoday may be biased and less reliable.