Critical analysis of scientific journal.
The ability to critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of information (EMPHASIS on this) published in the scientific literature is a key skill for all scientists. This exercise is designed to assess your ability to review a key scientific paper and your ability to communicate this information to colleagues in a concise but informative manner.
Each of you will be provided with a primary research paper.
Your ‘mission’ is to prepare a review covering the following points:
- Background to the study – Why was it done? What questions are they addressing? What is the significance of the study in the broader context of the topic etc? How good is the historical knowledge/rationale
Has the study been done before?/reinventing the wheel?
What is the purpose: Are the aims clear and achievable?
Think of the time financial cost of an ill-founded or redundant and therefore unnecessary study.
- Study design – Overview of how the study was conducted with the emphasis placed on methodology.
Are they clear and adequate in detail?
Have they used the right equipment?
Have they described the important parameters/criteria?
Is the study statistically powerful enough? (n number)
Is the study design appropriate e.g. appropriate controls/ clinical studies blinded/double blinded trials.
- Results: Description of what the key results obtained were.
- Discussion and conclusions: What do the results all mean? Are they significant?
Has the aim(s)/objectives been achieved?
If not what are the reasons:
which previous studies complement/conflict with the Results/Discussion
Do they give the reasons to account for the differences/discrepancies?
“similar” doesn’t mean “same”
Can specific improvements be made in the future?
scientific knowledge is cumulative
Have the results been interpreted reasonably?
Implications can be subtly overstated/overstretched
Is the conclusion justified?
Look at ther original aims/objectives
EMPHASIS Throughout the review, you should give a critical appraisal of the paper – i.e. Do you think the techniques are appropriate for answering the questions asked, are there major flaws in the authors rationale, study design, interpretation etc.
Emphasis on the critical analysis of the journal if they were right or wrong with the methodology, their results mean, what future work will be, reference back to their results(figures, diagrams) of what they mean
mark scheme >70% Identification of key findings, their wider significance, and limitations of journal paper. Clear evidence of critical evaluative understanding and excellent ideas for further work. Cogent & perceptive responses made to probing questions.
The ability to critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of information (EMPHASIS on this) published in the scientific literature is a key skill for all scientists. This exercise is designed to assess your ability to review a key scientific paper and your ability to communicate this information to colleagues in a concise but informative manner.
Each of you will be provided with a primary research paper.
Your ‘mission’ is to prepare a review covering the following points:
- Background to the study – Why was it done? What questions are they addressing? What is the significance of the study in the broader context of the topic etc? How good is the historical knowledge/rationale
Has the study been done before?/reinventing the wheel?
What is the purpose: Are the aims clear and achievable?
Think of the time financial cost of an ill-founded or redundant and therefore unnecessary study.
- Study design – Overview of how the study was conducted with the emphasis placed on methodology.
Are they clear and adequate in detail?
Have they used the right equipment?
Have they described the important parameters/criteria?
Is the study statistically powerful enough? (n number)
Is the study design appropriate e.g. appropriate controls/ clinical studies blinded/double blinded trials.
- Results: Description of what the key results obtained were.
- Discussion and conclusions: What do the results all mean? Are they significant?
Has the aim(s)/objectives been achieved?
If not what are the reasons:
which previous studies complement/conflict with the Results/Discussion
Do they give the reasons to account for the differences/discrepancies?
“similar” doesn’t mean “same”
Can specific improvements be made in the future?
scientific knowledge is cumulative
Have the results been interpreted reasonably?
Implications can be subtly overstated/overstretched
Is the conclusion justified?
Look at ther original aims/objectives
EMPHASIS Throughout the review, you should give a critical appraisal of the paper – i.e. Do you think the techniques are appropriate for answering the questions asked, are there major flaws in the authors rationale, study design, interpretation etc.
Emphasis on the critical analysis of the journal if they were right or wrong with the methodology, their results mean, what future work will be, reference back to their results(figures, diagrams) of what they mean
mark scheme >70% Identification of key findings, their wider significance, and limitations of journal paper. Clear evidence of critical evaluative understanding and excellent ideas for further work. Cogent & perceptive responses made to probing questions.
Comments
Post a Comment