IN HOUSE - PEER REVIEWERS FORM

Reviewers Background Title of the study to be Reviewed:

LSUFM Radio Station: Its Listenership to the Students of La Salle University Reviewer:
Compliance

A.

Software Test
YES
b.

NO

N/A

1.

Plagiarism Detector

Result: Remarks: Standard set is 70% Originality

B.

Full Paper Review

1. Design of Title (12 words, Universal, Catchy)

2.

Abstract

a.

Word Count

(at most of 200 words)

b.

Structure b.1 Situated the topic. Presents conditions that propelled the conduct of the research. b.2 Presented chief purpose/aim. x

States what the study intends to discover b.3 Method Mentions how the study was conducted Design Techniques Instruments (optional) Statistical Treatment (List of the Statistics used c. Results. Presents the salient findings d. Conclusions. Directly answers the chief purpose; the most important discovery which contributes to new knowledge e. Recommendations. Tells what can be done to effect necessary changes desired. g. Language. Uses correct standard English/Filipino 3. Introduction

x x x x x x x

x a. Stated the nature of the research or hypotheses clearly x b. Explained significance of the study x c. Presented related literature studies x d. Adopted framework suited to the study x e. Provided a logical, documented rationale for every hypothesis. x f. Developed each rationale in an unbiased

manner. x g. Identified clearly variables that were investigated. x h. Provided appropriate operational definitions for all variables.

4. Methods, Procedures and Materials/Instruments Used

x a. Carried out the study described in sufficient detail that could be replicated to access the same kinds of subjects and materials x b. Used appropriate research design for answering the research question x c. Discussed how subjects were assigned to experimental and control groups (for experiment/quasi-experiment studies only) x d. Designed the study to eliminate effects of possible confounding variables(for experimental studies and experiments x e. Provided a description of all materials that have been used in the study. x f. Gave information concerning the validity and reliability of tests and measuring

instruments in the study. x g. Materials/instruments

5.Results
x a. data Used appropriate statistical techniques to analyze the

x b. Accounted every hypothesis by indicating which have been confirmed and which have not. x c. Refrained from presenting data which are not within bound of the research problem

6. Discussion
x a. Connects the study's findings to the existing literature, indicating in what ways the findings agree or disagree with previous findings. x b. Points out possible limitations of the study x c. Points out any practical or theoretical implications that the study's findings have x

7. Conclusion and Recommendation (based

on the significant findings of the study)

12. References
x a. Included in the list of references all of the works cited

in the study. x b. Included recent as well as older references. x c. Used mostly primary sources as references. d. Intext Citations of Authors and Literature List Matched x

C. Peer Reviewers Judgment (Check only 1) 1. The paper is recommended for publication. 2. The paper can be accepted but subject to minor revisions. 3. The paper can be accepted but subject to major revisions. 4. The paper is rejected but encouraged to resubmit. 5. The paper is rejected for publication.

Comments and Suggestions IMO, this study could seriously benefit from an abstract (theoretical or conceptual) framework or a prevailing thought about media consumption, in this case college FM against commercial alternatives. A theoretical or even a conceptual basis connects the study to the bigger academic community and reduces the risk of a study that merely collects nominal data. Why study listenership? Are the proponents interested in finding out the factors influencing the selection of a particular medium (e.g. radio vs. TV or the new media) or a particular format (commercial FM vs. educational FM radio). There are existing theories claiming to account for the reasons why people prefer a certain medium over another, or factors affecting radio listenership. Or, whether the agenda presented in such stations match those of its intended listeners. Because of this absence of a framework, the literature review is reduced to a mere history of commercial FM and educational radio in the Philppines. We are deprived of an opportunity to understand the dynamics of radio listenership, its presumed causes as well as effects; or the problems ailing educational broadcasting, as well as opportunities for university-based radio as evidenced by the large number of iTunes channels classified under

College/University. (While iTunes lists mostly Western stations and is not the ultimate listing, Philippine schools like DLSU, UP, Ateneo and UP do have online radio stations.) A theory involves variables, measures for which will be available in the literature. This study does not define which variables were to be measured. Likewise, a theory, because it normally specifies relationships among variables, would give an idea as to how data might be analyzed. (The review form asks about hypotheses, which would involve tests of association or causality.) I am baffled why it was important to determine the demographics of respondents if they were merely students of LSU and not necessarily DXLU listeners. And by limiting demographics to sex and college, is that being consistent with an existing theory or previous study on radio listenership? How was market share (a concept mentioned in the title) measured? How is it normally measured? Frequency is measured by number of occurrences. A typical media exposure scale would be the number of days in a week a person is exposed to a medium. The amount of time is another measure. I have come across other measures like media attention as a way of distinguishing from mere exposure. The proponents are also advised to double-check the citations with the reference list for correspondence (e.g. Aleman, Lacson, Catholic Radio appear only in the text).