Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (15)
Similar to BIOL2050 - Peer review
Similar to BIOL2050 - Peer review (20)
More from Alessandro Filazzola
More from Alessandro Filazzola (9)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
BIOL2050 - Peer review
- 1. Peer-Review in Scientific Literature ALEX FILAZZOLA CRITICAL THINKING LAB 2
- 2. What is peer-review? - Quality control on scientific research prior to publication - Expert criticism of experimental work - Important part of the scientific method
- 7. Example of a bad paper Moss cushions facilitate water and nutrient supply for plant species on bare limestone pavements Sand-Jensen and Hammer 2012
- 8. Title Indicates the main finding Abstract Concisely written? Provides a clear overview of the work? Contains the essential facts from the paper? Ends by placing the work in a broader context, highlighting its significance? Intro Provides a clear, concise background to the study? Outlines the aims of the study and hypotheses Provides context to the current work Motivation for the work is explained Is there satisfactory citation of prior literature?
- 9. Methods Enough detail to replicate study? Is it clear what measured? Are the statistical design and analyses appropriate? Results Are the results provided in a form that is easy to interpret and understand? Have results for all the questions asked been provided? Are the figures and tables appropriate? Have the correct units of measurement been used? Discussion and Conclusions Have the authors answered their research question(s)/hypotheses? Are the conclusions drawn from the results justified? Has the significance of the study been fully explained? How do the results relate to similar studies? By how much has this study advanced the current understanding of the science?
- 10. Universal intellectual standards Clarity ◦-“Education is an issue in America” Accuracy ◦-“Dogs are on average over 300 pounds”
- 11. Universal intellectual standards Precision ◦-“Jack is overweight” Relevance ◦- Does a paragraph, section or article stay on target?
- 12. Universal intellectual standards Depth ◦- “Just say no” Breadth ◦- Bias
- 13. Universal intellectual standards Logic ◦- does this make sense?
- 15. Examples Lacks clarity and depth Bad writing…
- 16. Speed reading an article Abstract End of introduction Methods Beginning of discussion or conclusion
- 17. Example of a good paper Habitat fragmentation effects on annual survival of the federally protected eastern indigo snake Breininger et al. 2011
- 18. Template for analyzing an article 1. The main purpose of this article is: 2. The Key question that the author is addressing is: 3. The most important information in the article is: 4. The main inference/conclusions in the article are: 5. The key concept we need to understand in the article are: 6. The main assumptions underlying the authors thinking are: 7. The main points of view presented in this article are (present both sides of a debate if present): 8. Find examples (good or bad) of the seven Universal Intellectual Standards
Editor's Notes
- Revisions are structure as in a question from the reviewer that requires clarification. The italic writing is the authors addressing the reviewers issues and the remaining red writing is the changes to the manuscript to match appropriately.
- Read to the “Size, species richness, and composition of moss cushions” section of the methods.
- Why is it an issue? What is the issue with education. A better example would be: The education system in the USA is not able to appropriately prepare students for the working world. In accurate. I wouldn’t leave my house if dogs were on average 300 pounds.
- Precision is the details of how something is delivered. Jack is overweight, is clear. We know that he needs to trim a few pounds, but we don’t know by how much. He could be 10 pounds overweight or 300. Relevance, does the paragraph stay on target? Is the author rambling or referencing weird unrelated things in their report. There needs to be a consistency in the writing context.
- Depth, such as the common saying “just say no” in reference to drug use. There was a huge ad campaign against illegal drug use, but simplifying a complex issue to three words isn’t appropriately addressing the situation. If it was as easy as “just say no” then there wouldn’t be anyone doing drugs would there? Breath is a measure of bias. Sometimes authors can be biased by their own personal opinions and neglect different persepctives. Breath is how openly the author has approached the topic.
- Logic, does this make sense? This is probably the hardest on to measure but also one of the most important skills of a being a scientist. Determining whether or not something is logical borrows from your scientific background to determine what is, or isn’t true about a statement.