What do we want to see addressed by a reviewer?
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•184 views
The document outlines what a reviewer should address when reviewing a manuscript, including evaluating the context and content of the manuscript. For context, the reviewer should assess if the manuscript is presented appropriately within published literature, is novel, and integrates findings into existing knowledge. For content, the reviewer should consider if the study design, methods, models, and analyses are appropriate and if results and conclusions are convincing and supported by evidence presented. The reviewer does not need to worry about spelling, grammar, or editorial guidelines.
Report
Share
Report
Share
Recommended
How to write an effective review (and help editors and authors)
This document provides guidance for writing effective peer reviews that can help editors and authors. It emphasizes that reviewing is an important scientific duty and responsibility shared between editors and reviewers. The document outlines steps reviewers should take, including diagnosing issues with the manuscript, providing treatment by suggesting ways to improve the manuscript through revisions, and drafting a review report that clearly communicates the diagnosis and suggested revisions. It advises reviewers to avoid being rude or imposing unnecessary demands and instead focus on providing constructive feedback to strengthen the manuscript.
How to Become More Involved in Peer Review
The document provides guidance on how to become more involved in peer review. It notes that there is a shortage of high quality peer reviewers due to increased demands on scientists' time and a lack of compensation. It recommends accepting review invitations whenever possible, notifying associate editors of one's review interests, and seeking advice from senior investigators when conducting reviews.
Evidence based practice
This document provides guidance on writing and publishing an evidence-based article. It discusses the key steps, which include:
1) Developing a research question and choosing an article type and journal.
2) Assembling authors and assigning roles for writing and providing guidance.
3) Conducting a literature review on the topic drawing from sources like MEDLINE, Cochrane reviews, and RCTs.
4) Outlining the article structure and writing drafts with flowcharts, tables and references to support the content.
5) Finalizing the article by ensuring it achieves the intended purpose and following submission guidelines.
Writing a scientific paper
This document provides an overview of the typical sections in a research paper or thesis and guidance on how to write each section effectively. It discusses the purpose and content for sections like the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. The document also reviews tips for strong writing like rewriting and getting feedback from others. Overall, it aims to help readers understand what should be included in a research paper and how to structure and tell a compelling story through their writing.
Reading papers seminar 2
This document provides guidance on how to critically analyze scientific papers. It outlines key questions to consider when reading papers, such as the research question, experimental design, results, and conclusions. Some questions include identifying the independent and dependent variables, assessing if the methodology and analysis are appropriate, considering alternative explanations, and evaluating if the conclusions follow from the results. The document stresses the importance of critically evaluating various aspects of papers, from the introduction and literature review to the discussion and limitations.
The Peer Review Process
The document outlines the academic peer review process. It involves submitting a paper to a conference, which is then assigned to an area chair and sent to reviewers. The reviewers create scores and feedback, which are used by the area chair to write a summary and determine if the paper is accepted or rejected. The process relies on expert reviewers to evaluate the validity and significance of contributions. The document also provides guidance on conducting a detailed peer review, including performing multiple reads of the paper, checking for flaws, structuring a review report, and focusing on strengths as well as areas for improvement.
What do we mean by academic writing?
This document discusses the key features and rules of academic writing. It notes that academic writing is a process, has a clear audience and purpose, and is linear, complex, formal, precise, clear, concise, objective, and accurate. Some rules outlined are that evidence must be based on reliable research, objectivity is valued over subjectivity, and both sides of an argument must be presented. The document also provides tips for avoiding errors like proofreading and using spelling/grammar checks. Common errors like its/it's and e.g./i.e. are explained. The importance of supporting opinions with academic evidence is emphasized.
What do we mean by critical analysis
This document provides guidance on enhancing research skills, including properly scoping a research project, understanding the problem domain, applying critical analysis, and writing critically. It emphasizes the importance of identifying the problem domain, assessing one's position within it, and knowing when to conclude research due to time constraints. The document also offers tips for critical writing, such as focusing on a clear research question, presenting evidence and conclusions balanced with limitations, and structuring work through literature review, methodology, findings, and conclusions. Overall, it stresses questioning all aspects of the research and avoiding mismatches between questions, methods, findings, and conclusions.
Recommended
How to write an effective review (and help editors and authors)
This document provides guidance for writing effective peer reviews that can help editors and authors. It emphasizes that reviewing is an important scientific duty and responsibility shared between editors and reviewers. The document outlines steps reviewers should take, including diagnosing issues with the manuscript, providing treatment by suggesting ways to improve the manuscript through revisions, and drafting a review report that clearly communicates the diagnosis and suggested revisions. It advises reviewers to avoid being rude or imposing unnecessary demands and instead focus on providing constructive feedback to strengthen the manuscript.
How to Become More Involved in Peer Review
The document provides guidance on how to become more involved in peer review. It notes that there is a shortage of high quality peer reviewers due to increased demands on scientists' time and a lack of compensation. It recommends accepting review invitations whenever possible, notifying associate editors of one's review interests, and seeking advice from senior investigators when conducting reviews.
Evidence based practice
This document provides guidance on writing and publishing an evidence-based article. It discusses the key steps, which include:
1) Developing a research question and choosing an article type and journal.
2) Assembling authors and assigning roles for writing and providing guidance.
3) Conducting a literature review on the topic drawing from sources like MEDLINE, Cochrane reviews, and RCTs.
4) Outlining the article structure and writing drafts with flowcharts, tables and references to support the content.
5) Finalizing the article by ensuring it achieves the intended purpose and following submission guidelines.
Writing a scientific paper
This document provides an overview of the typical sections in a research paper or thesis and guidance on how to write each section effectively. It discusses the purpose and content for sections like the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. The document also reviews tips for strong writing like rewriting and getting feedback from others. Overall, it aims to help readers understand what should be included in a research paper and how to structure and tell a compelling story through their writing.
Reading papers seminar 2
This document provides guidance on how to critically analyze scientific papers. It outlines key questions to consider when reading papers, such as the research question, experimental design, results, and conclusions. Some questions include identifying the independent and dependent variables, assessing if the methodology and analysis are appropriate, considering alternative explanations, and evaluating if the conclusions follow from the results. The document stresses the importance of critically evaluating various aspects of papers, from the introduction and literature review to the discussion and limitations.
The Peer Review Process
The document outlines the academic peer review process. It involves submitting a paper to a conference, which is then assigned to an area chair and sent to reviewers. The reviewers create scores and feedback, which are used by the area chair to write a summary and determine if the paper is accepted or rejected. The process relies on expert reviewers to evaluate the validity and significance of contributions. The document also provides guidance on conducting a detailed peer review, including performing multiple reads of the paper, checking for flaws, structuring a review report, and focusing on strengths as well as areas for improvement.
What do we mean by academic writing?
This document discusses the key features and rules of academic writing. It notes that academic writing is a process, has a clear audience and purpose, and is linear, complex, formal, precise, clear, concise, objective, and accurate. Some rules outlined are that evidence must be based on reliable research, objectivity is valued over subjectivity, and both sides of an argument must be presented. The document also provides tips for avoiding errors like proofreading and using spelling/grammar checks. Common errors like its/it's and e.g./i.e. are explained. The importance of supporting opinions with academic evidence is emphasized.
What do we mean by critical analysis
This document provides guidance on enhancing research skills, including properly scoping a research project, understanding the problem domain, applying critical analysis, and writing critically. It emphasizes the importance of identifying the problem domain, assessing one's position within it, and knowing when to conclude research due to time constraints. The document also offers tips for critical writing, such as focusing on a clear research question, presenting evidence and conclusions balanced with limitations, and structuring work through literature review, methodology, findings, and conclusions. Overall, it stresses questioning all aspects of the research and avoiding mismatches between questions, methods, findings, and conclusions.
Reading Academic Journal Articles
This short powerpoint helps new university students to understand how academic journal articles are structured, and ways that they can quickly and effectively make sense of an article.
Professor Don Bergh on Academic Publishing (IAM Strategy SIG)
This document provides lessons learned from over 10 years of experience editing management journals. It discusses how to avoid desk rejections by ensuring the manuscript has a clear contribution, well-crafted sections, and alignment with the target journal. Reviewer comments should be taken seriously and addressed thoroughly in the response letter and revised manuscript. When becoming a reviewer oneself, comments to the editor should be timely, focused on major issues, and aim to improve the manuscript rather than reject. Overall, developing a strong conceptual contribution and crafting each section is key to publication success.
Establishing thesis dissertation paper criteria- module 5 &
This document discusses criteria for evaluating research papers and establishing thesis or dissertation criteria. It outlines three key criteria: quality, relevance, and leadership. Quality reviews emphasize objectivity and expertise of reviewers. Relevance examines whether the research addresses important topics and is useful. Leadership assesses whether the research is at the forefront of knowledge internationally. Additional criteria covered include clear focus, thorough research, logical organization and reasoning, proper documentation, and strong writing mechanics. The document concludes by discussing using rubrics to systematically evaluate research papers based on predetermined criteria.
How to Publish in Top Journal Articles
This document discusses strategies for getting published in top academic journals. It outlines reasons for pursuing publication, such as career advancement and prestige. There are two main types of journals - those that are editor reviewed, focusing on practice, and those that are blind peer reviewed and emphasize new knowledge generation through research. The review process typically involves initial rejection followed by opportunities for revision and resubmission. To improve chances of success, authors should select important topics, conduct high quality studies, craft strong arguments, and write clearly. Overall, pursuing publication is a learning process that benefits from sharing work with others and getting feedback.
The art of clinical paper writing
The document provides guidance on writing clinical papers. It acknowledges that many papers are written to get published rather than to be read. It outlines common errors in clinical paper writing, including titles that do not match the study, abstracts that exceed word limits or lack important details, introductions that include irrelevant information or omit hypotheses, and methods, results, and discussion sections that do not clearly report on the study design and findings. The document emphasizes writing concisely and focusing on communicating results to readers. It encourages learning from rejections to improve papers for resubmission.
المحاضرة السابعة - سلسلة أساسيات البحث العلمي
This document provides an outline for a presentation on scientific research. It discusses four main types of scientific papers: theoretical papers, experimental papers, fabrication papers, and clinical papers. For each paper type, it describes the key elements and focus. It also discusses literature reviews, including their purpose and common mistakes. Additionally, it covers how to structure a scientific paper, including sections like the abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions. Finally, it provides tips for writing style, including using precise language, correct tenses, active and passive voice, and formatting sentences and paragraphs clearly. The overall document offers guidance on various aspects of writing and presenting scientific work.
How to read a scientific paper
This document provides guidance on how to effectively read and understand a scientific research paper. It recommends first reading the abstract to understand the main points, then reviewing any background knowledge needed. When reading the full paper, the document advises skimming first for an overview, then carefully reading while underlining unfamiliar vocabulary. It suggests comprehending each section by considering the research problem, methods, results, and conclusions. The goal is to understand, critically evaluate, and summarize the paper's essential information and findings.
المحاضرة الثالثة - سلسلة أساسيات البحث العلمي
The correct strategy is to submit your paper to one journal, and wait to hear if it is accepted. If it isn't then submit it to another journal.
Simultaneously submitting the same paper to multiple journals is considered duplicate submission, which is unethical. Withdrawing other submissions once one is accepted still constitutes duplicate submission. The proper process is to submit to only one journal at a time.
ES Series on Scientific Research 34
Source: http://www.elsevier.com/ethics/
A Writer's Algorithm: Papers without (too much) Pain
This document provides an overview and outline for a presentation on writing research papers and managing reviews. It discusses frameworks for timely presentation of research and reviews, including the Writer's Algorithm which outlines good writing habits and the typical sections of a paper. The presentation style is meant to be interactive, encouraging attendees to interrupt and share. Key aspects that will be covered include determining the audience and journals, writing the title, abstract, introduction and conclusion, and organizing the methods, results and discussion sections. Guidance is provided on writing each section and ensuring a logical flow that clearly presents the findings and their implications.
Finding the right research question is the first step to successful publication
Finding the right research question is the first step to successful publicationEditage Insights (Resources for authors and journals)
A clearly defined research question increases the chances of publication because it gives the researchers greater clarity on developing the study protocol, designing the study, and analyzing the data.
A well-defined research question also makes a good initial impression on journal editors and peer reviewers.
In contrast, a poorly formulated research question can seriously harm your chances of publication, among other adverse effects, because it can easily lead to the perception that the research wasn’t well thought out.Manuscript development workshop
This document provides guidance on various aspects of developing a research manuscript. It discusses factors that influence the choice of research domain, identifying gaps in existing research, assessing the significance of a research question, determining strengths in methodology, getting feedback through presentations and publications, selecting an appropriate journal, addressing reviewer feedback, and tips for progressing in one's research career.
Writing a Scientific Article
The document provides guidance on writing scientific articles, including their typical structure and key components. It discusses the importance of planning the article by developing a central message and summarizing the key elements. Tips are provided on selecting an appropriate target journal based on factors like the article's significance, relevance and appeal. Common reasons for rejection like lack of novelty or poor writing are also reviewed.
How to write publish papers in dentistry
This document provides guidance on writing and publishing scientific papers in dentistry. It discusses the scientific process, communicating results through talks and written documents, and the obligations of research. It defines science and what makes research scientific. Characteristics of good science are outlined, including starting with a question and having a clear goal, specific plan, dividing problems into subproblems, hypotheses testing, and the cyclical nature of science. The document provides advice on literature reviews, impact factors, validity and reliability, statistics, and scientific writing style.
How To Go About Researching
The presentation deals with Basic Research Skills for conducting scientific research. Its an abridged version of the course/module offered at ITC, The Netherlands.
What do we mean by critical analysis?
This document discusses enhancing research skills, focusing on problem domains, critical analysis, and conducting academic research. It provides guidance on scoping a research project by identifying the problem domain, assessing your position within it, and knowing when to conclude research. Researchers should build upon existing work through critical analysis and replicate, apply, or extend prior studies. The document also offers tips for critical writing, including focusing on a clear question, justifying your position, providing evidence, and writing balanced conclusions. Structure, questioning assumptions, and considering limitations and ethics are emphasized.
Writing Your Thesis/Disseration
This presentation looks at some of the presenting issues for Third-Level students who are studying for a Masters Degree or Doctorate. It has a particular focus on the 'adult' learner or 'mature student'.
About your graduate studies part 1
A talk to beginning graduate students. Why do you study? Role of research? What do graduate degrees signify? And a Magic Spell to help with (almost) everything...
This is Part 1, Part 2 discusses Science and how to do it.
Writing skills Publishing Research Paper
This document discusses the key sections and types of scientific research papers and journals. It explains that research papers contain sections like introduction, methods, results, discussion and conclusion. It also describes different types of papers like original research articles, review papers, case reports and letters. The document also discusses what makes a journal indexed and peer-reviewed, and the importance of journal impact factor.
Planning - Advanced Higher History essay
This document provides guidance on how to plan an essay response by breaking it down into four key parts:
1) Understanding the exact question being asked
2) Establishing relevant context about the time period
3) Identifying 2-4 factors that could be discussed to answer the question
4) Determining what the conclusion or line of argument will be
It then offers three possible approaches for identifying factors: presenting evidence in a yes/no style, discussing possible reasons for an event, or identifying relevant events/actions that could be analyzed using the isolated factor.
BSc Veterinary Nursing dissertation workshop nov2015
This document provides guidance on conducting a literature search for a dissertation. It discusses developing keywords and considering synonyms, spelling variations, and related terms. Sources to search include Summon, databases, Google Scholar, and individual journals. Search tips include using quotation marks for phrases, truncation, broadening/narrowing searches. The document also covers keeping track of searches, citation searching to find related work, distinguishing primary and secondary sources, and the importance of critical appraisal of sources. Help from librarians is available for literature searching.
critical review of an article.ppt
This document provides guidance on how to critically review a published research article. It outlines the different types of articles commonly published, including original research articles, review articles, and case reports. It describes the typical structure of scientific articles, which usually includes an abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and references. The document then details the stages of critical appraisal, including reading the article multiple times, understanding what was done and why, analyzing the results and discussion, and asking questions about the information presented. Finally, it provides specific questions to consider when critically analyzing different sections of a research article such as the title, methods, results, discussion, and references.
Thesis Writing 2013-14 Week7
The document provides tips for conducting a literature review. It advises the reviewer to ask questions to define the scope and problems of the review, evaluate how each source is relevant to the research questions, and ensure the review synthesizes sources and identifies gaps or controversies in the literature. A literature review must configure sources directly related to the research problems, result in a synthesis summary, and formulate new questions for further research.
More Related Content
What's hot
Reading Academic Journal Articles
This short powerpoint helps new university students to understand how academic journal articles are structured, and ways that they can quickly and effectively make sense of an article.
Professor Don Bergh on Academic Publishing (IAM Strategy SIG)
This document provides lessons learned from over 10 years of experience editing management journals. It discusses how to avoid desk rejections by ensuring the manuscript has a clear contribution, well-crafted sections, and alignment with the target journal. Reviewer comments should be taken seriously and addressed thoroughly in the response letter and revised manuscript. When becoming a reviewer oneself, comments to the editor should be timely, focused on major issues, and aim to improve the manuscript rather than reject. Overall, developing a strong conceptual contribution and crafting each section is key to publication success.
Establishing thesis dissertation paper criteria- module 5 &
This document discusses criteria for evaluating research papers and establishing thesis or dissertation criteria. It outlines three key criteria: quality, relevance, and leadership. Quality reviews emphasize objectivity and expertise of reviewers. Relevance examines whether the research addresses important topics and is useful. Leadership assesses whether the research is at the forefront of knowledge internationally. Additional criteria covered include clear focus, thorough research, logical organization and reasoning, proper documentation, and strong writing mechanics. The document concludes by discussing using rubrics to systematically evaluate research papers based on predetermined criteria.
How to Publish in Top Journal Articles
This document discusses strategies for getting published in top academic journals. It outlines reasons for pursuing publication, such as career advancement and prestige. There are two main types of journals - those that are editor reviewed, focusing on practice, and those that are blind peer reviewed and emphasize new knowledge generation through research. The review process typically involves initial rejection followed by opportunities for revision and resubmission. To improve chances of success, authors should select important topics, conduct high quality studies, craft strong arguments, and write clearly. Overall, pursuing publication is a learning process that benefits from sharing work with others and getting feedback.
The art of clinical paper writing
The document provides guidance on writing clinical papers. It acknowledges that many papers are written to get published rather than to be read. It outlines common errors in clinical paper writing, including titles that do not match the study, abstracts that exceed word limits or lack important details, introductions that include irrelevant information or omit hypotheses, and methods, results, and discussion sections that do not clearly report on the study design and findings. The document emphasizes writing concisely and focusing on communicating results to readers. It encourages learning from rejections to improve papers for resubmission.
المحاضرة السابعة - سلسلة أساسيات البحث العلمي
This document provides an outline for a presentation on scientific research. It discusses four main types of scientific papers: theoretical papers, experimental papers, fabrication papers, and clinical papers. For each paper type, it describes the key elements and focus. It also discusses literature reviews, including their purpose and common mistakes. Additionally, it covers how to structure a scientific paper, including sections like the abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions. Finally, it provides tips for writing style, including using precise language, correct tenses, active and passive voice, and formatting sentences and paragraphs clearly. The overall document offers guidance on various aspects of writing and presenting scientific work.
How to read a scientific paper
This document provides guidance on how to effectively read and understand a scientific research paper. It recommends first reading the abstract to understand the main points, then reviewing any background knowledge needed. When reading the full paper, the document advises skimming first for an overview, then carefully reading while underlining unfamiliar vocabulary. It suggests comprehending each section by considering the research problem, methods, results, and conclusions. The goal is to understand, critically evaluate, and summarize the paper's essential information and findings.
المحاضرة الثالثة - سلسلة أساسيات البحث العلمي
The correct strategy is to submit your paper to one journal, and wait to hear if it is accepted. If it isn't then submit it to another journal.
Simultaneously submitting the same paper to multiple journals is considered duplicate submission, which is unethical. Withdrawing other submissions once one is accepted still constitutes duplicate submission. The proper process is to submit to only one journal at a time.
ES Series on Scientific Research 34
Source: http://www.elsevier.com/ethics/
A Writer's Algorithm: Papers without (too much) Pain
This document provides an overview and outline for a presentation on writing research papers and managing reviews. It discusses frameworks for timely presentation of research and reviews, including the Writer's Algorithm which outlines good writing habits and the typical sections of a paper. The presentation style is meant to be interactive, encouraging attendees to interrupt and share. Key aspects that will be covered include determining the audience and journals, writing the title, abstract, introduction and conclusion, and organizing the methods, results and discussion sections. Guidance is provided on writing each section and ensuring a logical flow that clearly presents the findings and their implications.
Finding the right research question is the first step to successful publication
Finding the right research question is the first step to successful publicationEditage Insights (Resources for authors and journals)
A clearly defined research question increases the chances of publication because it gives the researchers greater clarity on developing the study protocol, designing the study, and analyzing the data.
A well-defined research question also makes a good initial impression on journal editors and peer reviewers.
In contrast, a poorly formulated research question can seriously harm your chances of publication, among other adverse effects, because it can easily lead to the perception that the research wasn’t well thought out.Manuscript development workshop
This document provides guidance on various aspects of developing a research manuscript. It discusses factors that influence the choice of research domain, identifying gaps in existing research, assessing the significance of a research question, determining strengths in methodology, getting feedback through presentations and publications, selecting an appropriate journal, addressing reviewer feedback, and tips for progressing in one's research career.
Writing a Scientific Article
The document provides guidance on writing scientific articles, including their typical structure and key components. It discusses the importance of planning the article by developing a central message and summarizing the key elements. Tips are provided on selecting an appropriate target journal based on factors like the article's significance, relevance and appeal. Common reasons for rejection like lack of novelty or poor writing are also reviewed.
How to write publish papers in dentistry
This document provides guidance on writing and publishing scientific papers in dentistry. It discusses the scientific process, communicating results through talks and written documents, and the obligations of research. It defines science and what makes research scientific. Characteristics of good science are outlined, including starting with a question and having a clear goal, specific plan, dividing problems into subproblems, hypotheses testing, and the cyclical nature of science. The document provides advice on literature reviews, impact factors, validity and reliability, statistics, and scientific writing style.
How To Go About Researching
The presentation deals with Basic Research Skills for conducting scientific research. Its an abridged version of the course/module offered at ITC, The Netherlands.
What do we mean by critical analysis?
This document discusses enhancing research skills, focusing on problem domains, critical analysis, and conducting academic research. It provides guidance on scoping a research project by identifying the problem domain, assessing your position within it, and knowing when to conclude research. Researchers should build upon existing work through critical analysis and replicate, apply, or extend prior studies. The document also offers tips for critical writing, including focusing on a clear question, justifying your position, providing evidence, and writing balanced conclusions. Structure, questioning assumptions, and considering limitations and ethics are emphasized.
Writing Your Thesis/Disseration
This presentation looks at some of the presenting issues for Third-Level students who are studying for a Masters Degree or Doctorate. It has a particular focus on the 'adult' learner or 'mature student'.
About your graduate studies part 1
A talk to beginning graduate students. Why do you study? Role of research? What do graduate degrees signify? And a Magic Spell to help with (almost) everything...
This is Part 1, Part 2 discusses Science and how to do it.
Writing skills Publishing Research Paper
This document discusses the key sections and types of scientific research papers and journals. It explains that research papers contain sections like introduction, methods, results, discussion and conclusion. It also describes different types of papers like original research articles, review papers, case reports and letters. The document also discusses what makes a journal indexed and peer-reviewed, and the importance of journal impact factor.
Planning - Advanced Higher History essay
This document provides guidance on how to plan an essay response by breaking it down into four key parts:
1) Understanding the exact question being asked
2) Establishing relevant context about the time period
3) Identifying 2-4 factors that could be discussed to answer the question
4) Determining what the conclusion or line of argument will be
It then offers three possible approaches for identifying factors: presenting evidence in a yes/no style, discussing possible reasons for an event, or identifying relevant events/actions that could be analyzed using the isolated factor.
BSc Veterinary Nursing dissertation workshop nov2015
This document provides guidance on conducting a literature search for a dissertation. It discusses developing keywords and considering synonyms, spelling variations, and related terms. Sources to search include Summon, databases, Google Scholar, and individual journals. Search tips include using quotation marks for phrases, truncation, broadening/narrowing searches. The document also covers keeping track of searches, citation searching to find related work, distinguishing primary and secondary sources, and the importance of critical appraisal of sources. Help from librarians is available for literature searching.
What's hot (20)
Professor Don Bergh on Academic Publishing (IAM Strategy SIG)
Professor Don Bergh on Academic Publishing (IAM Strategy SIG)
Establishing thesis dissertation paper criteria- module 5 &
Establishing thesis dissertation paper criteria- module 5 &
A Writer's Algorithm: Papers without (too much) Pain
A Writer's Algorithm: Papers without (too much) Pain
Finding the right research question is the first step to successful publication
Finding the right research question is the first step to successful publication
BSc Veterinary Nursing dissertation workshop nov2015
BSc Veterinary Nursing dissertation workshop nov2015
Similar to What do we want to see addressed by a reviewer?
critical review of an article.ppt
This document provides guidance on how to critically review a published research article. It outlines the different types of articles commonly published, including original research articles, review articles, and case reports. It describes the typical structure of scientific articles, which usually includes an abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and references. The document then details the stages of critical appraisal, including reading the article multiple times, understanding what was done and why, analyzing the results and discussion, and asking questions about the information presented. Finally, it provides specific questions to consider when critically analyzing different sections of a research article such as the title, methods, results, discussion, and references.
Thesis Writing 2013-14 Week7
The document provides tips for conducting a literature review. It advises the reviewer to ask questions to define the scope and problems of the review, evaluate how each source is relevant to the research questions, and ensure the review synthesizes sources and identifies gaps or controversies in the literature. A literature review must configure sources directly related to the research problems, result in a synthesis summary, and formulate new questions for further research.
1Week 5Critiquing Research Articles to Prepare an Annotated B.docx
1
Week 5:Critiquing Research Articles to Prepare an Annotated Bibliography
As mentioned, one component of becoming an independent scholar is learning how to provide an evaluative critique of the work of other scholars. A critique of scholarly work requires your ability to use high level critical thinking skills. In addition, you must be able to write constructively and communicate your ideas well with clear and focused writing.
The purpose of this assignment is two-fold. First, you are to demonstrate your ability to clearly and precisely summarize and critically evaluate specific information from peer-reviewed resources. Secondly, you are to demonstrate your ability to clearly present that evaluative information in writing that meets academic and professional expectations. These skills will be invaluable as you go on to develop your literature review and in your journey to become an independent scholar.
The result of this activity is produce annotated bibliographies based on the two peer-reviewed journal articles related to your chosen topic (you are welcome to include more articles for practice and feedback). Use the sections and questions below to help you critique each article. You do not need to answer every single question as some questions might not apply. The questions are listed as a means to help you generate ideas as you work on critiquing each article. You might also consider using this template in the future when critically analyzing articles.
Please REMOVE the instructions and questions listed below for your paper and submit an annotated bibliography for each article.
Link to peer reviewed article one:
http://intqhc.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/6/341
1) APA reference for article #1
2)Introductionand core study elements
· Give an overview of the purpose of the study and the problem or issue discussed.
· Consider whether the problem is clearly described. Did the author(s) document and support the existence of the problem with scholarly sources and data? Were the sources credible and relevant (as defined by the readings you’ve done for this course)?
· What were the research questions?
· What were the key findings and conclusions of the study?
3) Evaluate literature reviewed
· Examine the literature reviewed by the author(s). How relevant is the) cited literature? Do certain ideas or concepts appear to be over/underemphasized? Was there any bias in language or tone of the writing? What discussions need elaboration or could be more concise? What is missing?
4) Evaluate theoretical framework
· What theoretical or conceptual framework was used as the basis for the study? What are the key variables and from which theories do they originate? Are variables well-defined? What alternative theories might support this study?
5) Evaluate methods
· What research method and designs are used in this study?
· How well are the methods described (could a reader duplicate the research process if needed)?
· Do the m ...
Research critic
This document outlines the process of critically evaluating a research report. A research critique requires critical thinking and appraisal skills to systematically and objectively examine all aspects of a study. The purposes of a critique are to assess methodological and analytical abilities, provide guidance to researchers, and advance the nursing profession. The critique process involves comprehending, comparing, analyzing, evaluating, and conceptually clustering the various components of a study. Key areas to critique include the introduction/problem statement, literature review, methodology, results, and conclusions. A critique should identify both strengths and limitations.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH.pptx
“Critical appraisal is a systematic process used to identify the strengths and weakness of a research article in order to assess the usefulness and validity of research findings”
s1170143txt
This document outlines what a literature review is and provides guidance on how to write an effective one. It defines a literature review as summarizing current problems and research related to your study purpose. It emphasizes identifying a research question, searching widely for relevant materials, and critically analyzing studies, including those with contrary findings. The document also provides questions to consider for individual books and articles to fully understand their conclusions, contributions, strengths and limitations.
Critical analysis of research article
A Research critique is a systematic way of objectively reviewing a piece of research to highlight both its strengths and weaknesses, and its applicability to practice. Professionals often need to be able to identify best current practice, and the ability to evaluate and use published research is critical in achieving the EBP.
Writing-a-Journal-Article-Review-1i.pptx
The document provides guidance for writing a journal article review. It begins by defining what a journal article is and explains that a review asks the reader to evaluate an article beyond just summarizing it. The document then lists detailed questions to guide the evaluation of an article's purpose and argument, organization of information, methods, and data. It provides an example of a sample journal article review, which includes an annotated bibliography, summary, and actual review. Finally, it provides instructions for a student's first quarter exam, which involves choosing a journal article to review based on their research group's approved topic.
Review of literature
This document provides guidance on conducting an effective literature review for a research paper or thesis. It defines what a literature review is, outlines the different types of sources, and describes the key purposes of a literature review such as identifying gaps in research and avoiding duplicating previous work. The document emphasizes that a literature review should not just be a list of summaries, but should evaluate and analyze previous research, highlight areas of agreement and disagreement, and assess the quality and findings of sources. It also provides questions researchers should consider to help structure and strengthen their literature review.
Review of literature
This document provides guidance on conducting an effective literature review for a research paper or thesis. It defines what a literature review is, outlines the different types of sources, and describes the key purposes of a literature review such as identifying gaps in research and avoiding duplicating previous work. The document emphasizes that a literature review should not just be a list of summaries, but should evaluate and analyze previous research, highlight areas of agreement and disagreement, and assess the quality and findings of sources. It also provides questions researchers should consider to help structure and strengthen their literature review.
Evaluating published research-research publication
Evaluating published research-research publication
Thesis Writing format.pptx
This document outlines the typical structure and components of a thesis, including: the title page, table of contents, introduction, literature review, aims and objectives, methods, results, discussion, conclusion, future prospectus, references, and appendices. It provides guidance on what information should be included in each section, such as summarizing previous relevant research in the introduction, evaluating sources in the literature review, ensuring objectives are SMART, and only including necessary information in the methods to allow for replication. The document aims to help students properly structure their thesis and include the appropriate level of detail in each required section.
How to write a research paper for an international peerreviewed journal
This PowerPoint is on writing a research article for an International Peer-reviewed Journal. The talk was delivered at an International Virtual workshop. All videos related to research conferences can be viewed at
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNEUKBUIaQG3wr05Sj38oDA/featured
Review of literature
This document provides guidance on conducting an effective literature review for research. It defines a literature review as an account of what has been published on a topic by other scholars. There are two main types of sources: primary sources that are directly being written about and secondary sources that discuss other researchers' work. An effective literature review is not just a list of sources, but includes evaluating and commenting on previous research, identifying areas of agreement and disagreement, and assessing source quality and findings. The literature review should be organized based on the research question and help define the thesis, identify gaps, avoid repetition, and position the research in the existing literature.
Review of literature
This document provides guidance on conducting an effective literature review for research. It defines a literature review as an account of what has been published on a topic by other scholars. There are two main types of sources: primary sources that are directly being written about and secondary sources that discuss other researchers' work. An effective literature review is not just a list of sources, but includes evaluating previous research, identifying areas of agreement and disagreement, and assessing source quality and findings. The goals of a literature review are to identify what is known and unknown about a topic, avoid duplicating others' work, and position one's own research in the context of existing literature.
MM Bagali, Research, PhD, Literature
1. The document discusses various aspects of conducting a literature review for research, including preparing for research work, crafting a literature review, identifying relevant literature, and reflecting on the literature review process.
2. It provides guidance on searching literature sources, common errors to avoid, and developing an outline for a literature review.
3. Key tips emphasized are to keep the literature review updated, read sources extensively and critically, and develop a deep understanding of the topic before writing.
Thesis evaluation criteria
This document outlines evaluation criteria for thesis examinations. It discusses what examiners look for in four main areas: the literature review, methodology, presentation of results, and discussion/conclusions. Examiners want the thesis to demonstrate a thorough review of relevant literature, an appropriate methodology, clear presentation of results that answer the research questions, and a discussion that links the results to the literature. The document also provides tips for thesis defenses, including preparing presentation slides and handling questions from examiners. Possible examination verdicts include passing with no corrections, passing with minor or major revisions, resubmission, or failure.
ex week7
This document provides guidance on writing an effective literature review. It explains that a literature review should convey the key points of existing research precisely, critically appraise prior studies from a neutral perspective, and synthesize results into a summary of what is known and still unknown. The review should define the research question, scope, and purpose. When examining sources, the writer should evaluate the problems addressed, theoretical perspectives, logical analyses, importance to the topic, and ease of understanding. Finally, an effective literature review presents themes in sections with related theories and quotes sources in context of the research questions.
Literature gap identification gvk sharma-1
This document outlines the process of identifying research gaps through literature review. It discusses the characteristics of an effective researcher and provides a 4-stage approach to reading research papers to understand the key details and evaluate claims. The sources of research gaps are described, such as future work sections, systematic reviews, and trend papers. Methods to identify gaps include comparing approaches, identifying simplifications, and presenting seminars. Practical aids that help identify gaps include note-taking, writing survey papers, and getting feedback from others.
Bhanu Presentation 1, Academic Writing Workshop, KCC.pptx
This document provides an overview of academic writing workshops focusing on literature reviews and methodology. It discusses what a literature review is, why it is important, and when to start. It also addresses potential challenges in conducting a literature review like time constraints and accessing resources. The document reviews developing a research question, types of literature reviews, and how to structure a literature review. It provides tips for reading literature, citing sources, and searching for sources. The document also touches on grounded theory, mixed methods approaches, triangulation, and ethical approval.
Similar to What do we want to see addressed by a reviewer? (20)
1Week 5Critiquing Research Articles to Prepare an Annotated B.docx
1Week 5Critiquing Research Articles to Prepare an Annotated B.docx
Evaluating published research-research publication
Evaluating published research-research publication
How to write a research paper for an international peerreviewed journal
How to write a research paper for an international peerreviewed journal
Bhanu Presentation 1, Academic Writing Workshop, KCC.pptx
Bhanu Presentation 1, Academic Writing Workshop, KCC.pptx
More from OARSI
So You Want To Be a Reviewer?
Statistical review is almost always needed for peer-reviewed journals to ensure proper evaluation of a study's sample size, sampling, randomization, blinding, interpretation of findings, and appropriate handling of uncertainty through confidence intervals. Reviewers should check that authors provide confidence intervals that exclude clinically relevant differences when finding no effect, and that interpret the range of possible values when finding a difference. This helps improve the rigor and reliability of clinical research.
Real-life examples of manuscript reviews Comparison and contrast of useful ...
Aileen Davis, PhD
Senior Scientist and Division Head,
Health Care and Outcomes Research,
Krembil Research Institute,
University Health Network and
Professor, University of Toronto
Real-life examples of manuscript reviews Comparison and contrast of useful ...
Aileen Davis, PhD
Senior Scientist and Division Head,
Health Care and Outcomes Research,
Krembil Research Institute,
University Health Network and
Professor, University of Toronto
Overview of the Editorial Process
- Osteoarthritis and Cartilage (OAC) has seen increasing numbers of paper submissions over the years since 2000, allowing it to publish more papers annually despite decreasing acceptance rates.
- In 2018, OAC accepted only 24% of submissions, meaning 76% were rejected, making it harder than ever to get published in OAC.
- OAC relies on peer reviewers to ensure paper quality and help editors discern the most important works to publish amid rising submission volumes. Reviewers' expertise and feedback improves published papers.
Real-life examples of manuscript reviews Comparison and contrast of useful ...
This document provides examples of useful and not so useful reviewer comments on manuscripts. It discusses the importance of using respectful language in reviews and focusing comments on substantive issues that can help authors improve their work, rather than personal opinions. Clarifying questions, suggestions for additional analyses, and respectfully worded critiques of methods or interpretations are given as examples of helpful reviewer feedback, while vague, cryptic or debate-seeking comments are identified as less constructive. The document emphasizes staying focused on the scope and purpose of the manuscript under review.
Statistical Review of Basic Science Manuscripts at Osteoarthritis and Cartila...
Associate editor for statistics, Osteoarthritis and Cartilage
Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Lund University
Imaging of Synovitis in OA
Professor of Radiology and Medicine
Vice Chair, Academic Affairs
Assistant Dean of Diversity
Director, Quantitative Imaging Center (QIC)
Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA
Nuts & Bolts of Systematic Reviews, Meta-analyses & Network Meta-analyses
Director, Applied Health Research Centre (AHRC)
Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital
Professor, Department of Medicine & IHPME, University of Toronto
Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Clinical Epidemiology of Chronic Diseases
Osteoarthriits Imaging: 2018 Year in Review
Professor of Radiology
University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
Vincent the Lumper!
This document discusses the concept of distinct endotypes or subtypes of osteoarthritis (OA), including "metabolic OA", "post-traumatic OA", "inflammatory OA", and "site-specific OA". However, the author argues that currently there is no strong evidence that these proposed endotypes exist or have clinical utility. The author believes that mechanical injury is the common pathogenic pathway in OA, which can be promoted by factors like age, trauma, metabolism, inflammation, and genetics. Rather than distinct pathways, these factors may influence OA through common pathways like "mechanoflammation" and reducing the ability to repair.
OA White Paper: Broader Implications for Advocacy, Health Policy & Research
Gillian Hawker MD MSc FRCPC
Sir John & Lady Eaton Professor and Chair of Medicine
University of Toronto
Structural Targets for Prevention of Post Traumatic OA
David Hunter MBBS, PhD, FRACP
Florance and Cope Chair of Rheumatology, Professor of Medicine
University of Sydney and Royal North Shore Hospital
Chair, Institute of Bone and Joint Research
Chair, Musculoskeletal, Sydney Medical Program
Consultant Rheumatologist, North Sydney Orthopedic and Sports Medicine
Building a translational team for impacting public policy Pre-Congress Worksh...
David Hunter MBBS, PhD, FRACP
Florance and Cope Chair of Rheumatology, Professor of Medicine
University of Sydney and Royal North Shore Hospital
Chair, Institute of Bone and Joint Research
Consultant Rheumatologist, North Sydney Orthopedic and Sports Medicine
An industry point of view for building a translational team
Christoph Ladel is an employee and shareholder of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. He presents on building a translational team for osteoarthritis drug development. There are gaps in osteoarthritis biomarkers, including a lack of pharmacodynamic biomarkers to measure target engagement and disease progression. Collaborations are working to address these gaps through initiatives analyzing biomarkers in synovial fluid and imaging data from clinical trials. The talk reviews the current biomarker landscape and ongoing efforts between the osteoarthritis research community and industry.
Osteoarthritis: Structural Endpoints for the Development of Drugs, Devices, a...
The document discusses considerations for developing medical products to treat osteoarthritis (OA) using structural endpoints. It notes that while modifying disease pathophysiology and changing the natural course of OA is desirable, there are challenges to reliably assessing a product's ability to alter disease progression. Specifically, there is a lack of standard definitions for progression and validated endpoints. Additionally, the relationship between structural changes and symptoms/function is variable. The document advises that substantial evidence would be needed to accept a structural endpoint for accelerated approval and reliably predict clinical benefits like reduced pain and increased function. The ultimate goal is to avoid joint failure and replacement while preserving function and relieving pain.
Understanding the Accelerated Pathway
This document discusses the accelerated approval pathway for drugs. It provides three key points:
1. The accelerated approval pathway allows drugs to be approved earlier, typically after 2-5 years instead of the standard timeframe, based on surrogate endpoints that are reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. Approval is contingent on further studies to verify clinical benefit.
2. Over 25 years, the FDA has granted accelerated approval to 93 drugs for cancer using surrogate endpoints like tumor shrinkage. 55% of drugs have fulfilled post-approval requirements to verify clinical benefit.
3. Biomarkers that indicate disease processes can be useful surrogate endpoints for accelerated approval of osteoarthritis drugs, which currently have no disease-modifying treatments approved.
Approval of Therapeutics for Osteoarthritis in 2019
This document discusses challenges in developing drugs to treat osteoarthritis (OA) by modifying disease structure. OA is a complex disease involving multiple joint structures. Clinical trials must demonstrate that changes in structural endpoints, like cartilage thickness, reliably predict improvements in how patients feel and function. However, there is a lack of standard definitions for structural progression and uncertainty if structural changes translate to clinical benefits. Large trials are needed to concurrently assess structural and symptomatic effects. Biomarkers may help link structural and clinical outcomes if changes reasonably reflect patient benefits. Developing drugs targeting specific joint structures like cartilage or subchondral bone remains difficult given OA's complexity.
YEAR IN REVIEW - Genetics, Genomics, Epigenetics
- Two large genome-wide association studies identified 57 new genetic risk loci for osteoarthritis, almost tripling the total number known from 33 to 90.
- Studies of hip shape and developmental hip disorders found that some osteoarthritis genetic variants influence hip morphology during development.
- New genomic techniques including single-cell RNA sequencing of cartilage and ATAC sequencing to map open chromatin identified cell types and regulatory regions in osteoarthritis.
- Epigenetic studies profiled long non-coding RNAs, microRNAs, and histone modifications in osteoarthritis cartilage to characterize the epigenetic landscape.
Year in review - Biochemical markers
Erwin van Spil reviewed 116 publications from 2018-2019 on soluble biochemical markers in body fluids of human osteoarthritis (OA) patients. Several key findings were presented:
- Novel markers were identified in blood and synovial fluid for knee OA, but need further validation in larger cohorts.
- Intervention studies used markers as surrogate endpoints and to understand treatment mechanisms. A trial found colchicine reduced inflammation markers.
- Subgroup analyses identified marker profiles for rapidly progressive OA and found profiles differed by radiographic severity and exercise response. Multi-marker approaches may better characterize phenotypes.
In conclusion, markers provide insights but specificity remains a challenge. Marker panels may help overcome issues to generate
Year in Review: Mechanics
Michael A. Hunt PT, PhD
Department of Physical Therapy
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, Canada
More from OARSI (20)
Real-life examples of manuscript reviews Comparison and contrast of useful ...
Real-life examples of manuscript reviews Comparison and contrast of useful ...
Real-life examples of manuscript reviews Comparison and contrast of useful ...
Real-life examples of manuscript reviews Comparison and contrast of useful ...
Real-life examples of manuscript reviews Comparison and contrast of useful ...
Real-life examples of manuscript reviews Comparison and contrast of useful ...
Statistical Review of Basic Science Manuscripts at Osteoarthritis and Cartila...
Statistical Review of Basic Science Manuscripts at Osteoarthritis and Cartila...
Nuts & Bolts of Systematic Reviews, Meta-analyses & Network Meta-analyses
Nuts & Bolts of Systematic Reviews, Meta-analyses & Network Meta-analyses
OA White Paper: Broader Implications for Advocacy, Health Policy & Research
OA White Paper: Broader Implications for Advocacy, Health Policy & Research
Structural Targets for Prevention of Post Traumatic OA
Structural Targets for Prevention of Post Traumatic OA
Building a translational team for impacting public policy Pre-Congress Worksh...
Building a translational team for impacting public policy Pre-Congress Worksh...
An industry point of view for building a translational team
An industry point of view for building a translational team
Osteoarthritis: Structural Endpoints for the Development of Drugs, Devices, a...
Osteoarthritis: Structural Endpoints for the Development of Drugs, Devices, a...
Approval of Therapeutics for Osteoarthritis in 2019
Approval of Therapeutics for Osteoarthritis in 2019
Recently uploaded
Ketone bodies and metabolism-biochemistry
This slide consists of all the topics of ketone . This can be used for exam purpose for writing about Diabetic keto acidosis etc . Thank you
Medical Quiz ( Online Quiz for API Meet 2024 ).pdf
This quiz was conducted as a promotional event for the 2024 Annual Meet of Kerala Chapter of API.
More than 20 participants took part everyday !
All info about Diabetes and how to control it.
One health condition that is becoming more common day by day is diabetes.
According to research conducted by the National Family Health Survey of India, diabetic cases show a projection which might increase to 10.4% by 2030.
Histopathology of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Visual treat
Histopathology of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Visual treat
Integrating Ayurveda into Parkinson’s Management: A Holistic Approach
Explore the benefits of combining Ayurveda with conventional Parkinson's treatments. Learn how a holistic approach can manage symptoms, enhance well-being, and balance body energies. Discover the steps to safely integrate Ayurvedic practices into your Parkinson’s care plan, including expert guidance on diet, herbal remedies, and lifestyle modifications.
Cell Therapy Expansion and Challenges in Autoimmune Disease
There is increasing confidence that cell therapies will soon play a role in the treatment of autoimmune disorders, but the extent of this impact remains to be seen. Early readouts on autologous CAR-Ts in lupus are encouraging, but manufacturing and cost limitations are likely to restrict access to highly refractory patients. Allogeneic CAR-Ts have the potential to broaden access to earlier lines of treatment due to their inherent cost benefits, however they will need to demonstrate comparable or improved efficacy to established modalities.
In addition to infrastructure and capacity constraints, CAR-Ts face a very different risk-benefit dynamic in autoimmune compared to oncology, highlighting the need for tolerable therapies with low adverse event risk. CAR-NK and Treg-based therapies are also being developed in certain autoimmune disorders and may demonstrate favorable safety profiles. Several novel non-cell therapies such as bispecific antibodies, nanobodies, and RNAi drugs, may also offer future alternative competitive solutions with variable value propositions.
Widespread adoption of cell therapies will not only require strong efficacy and safety data, but also adapted pricing and access strategies. At oncology-based price points, CAR-Ts are unlikely to achieve broad market access in autoimmune disorders, with eligible patient populations that are potentially orders of magnitude greater than the number of currently addressable cancer patients. Developers have made strides towards reducing cell therapy COGS while improving manufacturing efficiency, but payors will inevitably restrict access until more sustainable pricing is achieved.
Despite these headwinds, industry leaders and investors remain confident that cell therapies are poised to address significant unmet need in patients suffering from autoimmune disorders. However, the extent of this impact on the treatment landscape remains to be seen, as the industry rapidly approaches an inflection point.
Local Advanced Lung Cancer: Artificial Intelligence, Synergetics, Complex Sys...
Overall life span (LS) was 1671.7±1721.6 days and cumulative 5YS reached 62.4%, 10 years – 50.4%, 20 years – 44.6%. 94 LCP lived more than 5 years without cancer (LS=2958.6±1723.6 days), 22 – more than 10 years (LS=5571±1841.8 days). 67 LCP died because of LC (LS=471.9±344 days). AT significantly improved 5YS (68% vs. 53.7%) (P=0.028 by log-rank test). Cox modeling displayed that 5YS of LCP significantly depended on: N0-N12, T3-4, blood cell circuit, cell ratio factors (ratio between cancer cells-CC and blood cells subpopulations), LC cell dynamics, recalcification time, heparin tolerance, prothrombin index, protein, AT, procedure type (P=0.000-0.031). Neural networks, genetic algorithm selection and bootstrap simulation revealed relationships between 5YS and N0-12 (rank=1), thrombocytes/CC (rank=2), segmented neutrophils/CC (3), eosinophils/CC (4), erythrocytes/CC (5), healthy cells/CC (6), lymphocytes/CC (7), stick neutrophils/CC (8), leucocytes/CC (9), monocytes/CC (10). Correct prediction of 5YS was 100% by neural networks computing (error=0.000; area under ROC curve=1.0).
Role of Mukta Pishti in the Management of Hyperthyroidism
Muktapishti is a traditional Ayurvedic preparation made from Shoditha Mukta (Purified Pearl), is believed to help regulate thyroid function and reduce symptoms of hyperthyroidism due to its cooling and balancing properties. Clinical evidence on its efficacy remains limited, necessitating further research to validate its therapeutic benefits.
The Nervous and Chemical Regulation of Respiration
These lecture slides, by Dr Sidra Arshad, offer a simplified look into the mechanisms involved in the regulation of respiration:
Learning objectives:
1. Describe the organisation of respiratory center
2. Describe the nervous control of inspiration and respiratory rhythm
3. Describe the functions of the dorsal and respiratory groups of neurons
4. Describe the influences of the Pneumotaxic and Apneustic centers
5. Explain the role of Hering-Breur inflation reflex in regulation of inspiration
6. Explain the role of central chemoreceptors in regulation of respiration
7. Explain the role of peripheral chemoreceptors in regulation of respiration
8. Explain the regulation of respiration during exercise
9. Integrate the respiratory regulatory mechanisms
10. Describe the Cheyne-Stokes breathing
Study Resources:
1. Chapter 42, Guyton and Hall Textbook of Medical Physiology, 14th edition
2. Chapter 36, Ganong’s Review of Medical Physiology, 26th edition
3. Chapter 13, Human Physiology by Lauralee Sherwood, 9th edition
Clinic ^%[+27633867063*Abortion Pills For Sale In Tembisa Central
Clinic ^%[+27633867063*Abortion Pills For Sale In Tembisa Central Clinic ^%[+27633867063*Abortion Pills For Sale In Tembisa CentralClinic ^%[+27633867063*Abortion Pills For Sale In Tembisa CentralClinic ^%[+27633867063*Abortion Pills For Sale In Tembisa CentralClinic ^%[+27633867063*Abortion Pills For Sale In Tembisa Central
Recently uploaded (20)
CHEMOTHERAPY_RDP_CHAPTER 6_Anti Malarial Drugs.pdf
CHEMOTHERAPY_RDP_CHAPTER 6_Anti Malarial Drugs.pdf
Medical Quiz ( Online Quiz for API Meet 2024 ).pdf
Medical Quiz ( Online Quiz for API Meet 2024 ).pdf
Vestibulocochlear Nerve by Dr. Rabia Inam Gandapore.pptx
Vestibulocochlear Nerve by Dr. Rabia Inam Gandapore.pptx
Muscles of Mastication by Dr. Rabia Inam Gandapore.pptx
Muscles of Mastication by Dr. Rabia Inam Gandapore.pptx
Histopathology of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Visual treat
Histopathology of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Visual treat
Integrating Ayurveda into Parkinson’s Management: A Holistic Approach
Integrating Ayurveda into Parkinson’s Management: A Holistic Approach
Cell Therapy Expansion and Challenges in Autoimmune Disease
Cell Therapy Expansion and Challenges in Autoimmune Disease
Local Advanced Lung Cancer: Artificial Intelligence, Synergetics, Complex Sys...
Local Advanced Lung Cancer: Artificial Intelligence, Synergetics, Complex Sys...
Role of Mukta Pishti in the Management of Hyperthyroidism
Role of Mukta Pishti in the Management of Hyperthyroidism
The Nervous and Chemical Regulation of Respiration
The Nervous and Chemical Regulation of Respiration
Clinic ^%[+27633867063*Abortion Pills For Sale In Tembisa Central
Clinic ^%[+27633867063*Abortion Pills For Sale In Tembisa Central
What do we want to see addressed by a reviewer?
- 1. What do we want to see addressed by a reviewer? 1) Context of the manuscript – if everything is convincing, is it an important contribution 2) Content of the manuscript – are the conclusions convincing
- 2. Context of the manuscript • Is the manuscript presented appropriately in the context of the published literature? • Is it novel, and if not, is previous literature properly described (in introduction and discussion) ? Does it provide a major advance over the authors’ previous work? • Does it contradict published literature? • Does the discussion integrate the findings into existing knowledge?
- 3. Content of the manuscript • Is the study design appropriate? E.g. N, controls….. • Are the methods appropriate for the questions asked? Are they sufficiently well described? • Are the models appropriate for the questions asked? • Are scientific guidelines of the journal and general standards followed (statistical analyses, ARRIVE….) • Are the results convincing? Especially qualitative results. • Are conclusions supported by results? • Is the discussion related to results? Does it address limitations? Does it simply restate results or discuss them?
- 4. What you don’t have to worry about • Spelling and grammar • Editorial guidelines (reference style, figure numbers…)