Critiquing scientific papers - UBC Botany [PDF]

ааIf you have little experience in reading scientific papers, then you might follow guidelines list below, which are t

0 downloads 4 Views 280KB Size

Recommend Stories


Scientific papers 1992 [PDF]
Acta Orthop Scand 1993; 64: 175-7. Nilsson LT, Strömqvist B, Lidgren L, Thorngren KG. Deep infection following femoral neck fracture osteosynthesis. Orthop Traumatol 1993; 3: 313-5. Nilsson LT, Strömqvist B. Reosteosyntes vid collum femorisfraktur.

Harvard Papers in Botany
Don't ruin a good today by thinking about a bad yesterday. Let it go. Anonymous

Harvard Papers in Botany
We can't help everyone, but everyone can help someone. Ronald Reagan

scientific papers
The only limits you see are the ones you impose on yourself. Dr. Wayne Dyer

scientific papers
Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right. Isaac Asimov

Organization of Scientific Research Papers
What we think, what we become. Buddha

1.1: Copy-editing scientific papers
Ego says, "Once everything falls into place, I'll feel peace." Spirit says "Find your peace, and then

Automated Critiquing of Medical
Sorrow prepares you for joy. It violently sweeps everything out of your house, so that new joy can find

UBC Okanagan Employment Group
So many books, so little time. Frank Zappa

The Scientific Papers Of James Clerk Maxwell
I tried to make sense of the Four Books, until love arrived, and it all became a single syllable. Yunus

Idea Transcript


Critiquing scientific papers You are asked to review and critique scientific papers in this course.  If you have little  experience in reading scientific papers, then you might follow guidelines list below,  which are the "Guidelines for Reviewers" of manuscripts submitted for publication in the  journals of the Ecological Society of America. COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHORS ­ What is the major contribution of the paper?  What are its major strengths and weaknesses? Please include both general and specific  comments bearing on these questions, and EMPHASIZE your most significant points. GENERAL • • • • • • • •

importance and interest to Ecologists (or Evolutionary Biologists for this class) scientific soundness originality organization and clarity cohesiveness of argument degree to which conclusions are supported by the data length relative to the number of new ideas and information conciseness and writing style

SPECIFIC: Support your general comments with specific evidence. •

• • •

 Presentation  ­ Does the paper tell a cohesive story? Is it a tightly reasoned  argument evident throughout the paper? Where does the paper wander from this  argument? Do the title, abstract, key words, introduction and conclusions  accurately and consistently reflect the major point(s) of the paper? Is the writing  concise, easy to follow, interesting?  Length  ­ What portions of the paper should be expanded? condensed? combined?  deleted? (PLEASE don't advise an overall shortening by X %. Be specific!)  Methods  ­ Are they appropriate? current? described clearly enough so that the  work could be repeated by someone else? Data presentation ­ When results are stated in the text of the paper, can you easily  verify them by examining tables and figures? Are any of the results counter­ intuitive? Are all tables and figure clearly labeled? well planned? too complex? 





• •  

necessary?  Statistical design and analyses  ­ Are they appropriate and correct? Can the reader  readily discern which measurements or observations are independent of which  other measurements or observations? Are replicates correctly identified? Are  significance statements justified?  Errors  ­ Point out any errors in technique, fact, calculation, interpretation, or style.  (For style, follow the CBE Style Manual, Fifth Edition, and the ASTM Standard  for Metric Practice, E­380­84).  Citations  ­ Are all (and only) pertinent references cited? Are they provide for all  assertions of fact not supported by the article itself?  Overlap  ­ Does this paper report data or conclusions already published or in  press? If so, please provide details.

FAIRNESS and OBJECTIVITY ­ If the research reported in this paper is flawed, criticize  the science, not the scientist. Harsh words in a review will cause the reader to doubt your  objectivity; as a result, your criticism will be rejected, even if they are correct! Comments directed to the author should convince the author that: • • • •

you have read the entire paper carefully your criticisms are objective and correct, are not merely differences of opinion,  and are intended to help the author improve his or her paper, and you are qualified to provide an expert opinion about the research reported in this  paper If you fail to win the author's respect and appreciation, your efforts will have been  wasted.

  ANONYMITY ­ You may sign your review if you wish. If you choose to remain  anonymous, avoid comments to the authors that might serve as clues to your identity, and  do not use paper that bears the watermark of your institution.

Smile Life

When life gives you a hundred reasons to cry, show life that you have a thousand reasons to smile

Get in touch

© Copyright 2015 - 2024 PDFFOX.COM - All rights reserved.