learning a generative motion model from sequence based on a latent motion matrix
Cbreary_360
PointsforOrganizingScientificCriticextended.ppt3FglobalNavigationfalse1.pptBIOL 491 Cell Bio Lab
Critique of Scientific Publication
The critique must include the following points: You will be graded for each of these points.
I will pay particular attention to G)
A) Brief introduction of the scientific process being investigated
B) Objective of the Study- What was the goal of the study? What question(s) did the author(s) ask?
What was their hypothesis?
C) Key observations: What were their most important findings?
D) What techniques were used: Materials and Methods.
E) How did this work help advance our understanding of the topic?
F) What is the conclusion?
G) Your own perspective – were the data convincing? What other experiments would you have done?
The way you organize these points and writing style is entirely up to you. You DO NOT need to separate them out in to sections.
Brief introduction of the scientific process being investigated
Read the introduction. The introduction should give you a good grasp of the processes that are being studied/authors hope to look in to.
If you do not understand or have difficulty wrapping you’re head around things,
- Try to find a good review article (go to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ and type the topic you want in the search field and click on reviews to filter the results. If you run across links that cannot be opened or require payment to view talk to me so I can get you access)
- Go to Wikipedia and look up the relevant topic
- Do not read from commercial websites trying to sell products
Objective of the Study- What was the goal of the study? What question(s) did the author(s) ask?
What was their hypothesis?
You MUST answer each of these questions. Typically you should be able to find the answers in the introduction. However depending on the author and the style they write this information might be spread out in to results/discussion as well. READ the paper! Don’t tell me that you could not find the answers. No I will not do it for you
Key observations: What were their most important findings?
This is essentially the Results section (although sometimes it spills over in to the discussion). At the least, go through the figures. The figure titles should give you a good idea about what each figure is trying to convey. This should not be too difficult
What techniques were used: Materials and Methods.
This is the Material and methods section.
Some papers extensively use one or 2 techniques while others are more numerous in usage. Some papers separate out the different techniques and explain them under separate sub headings. YMMV. Again, writing this should not be too difficult
E) How did this work help advance our understanding of the topic?
This is the discussion.
Sometimes it should be obvious and other times it will be more subtle. Either way the authors would have addressed this in the discussion.
You don’t need to go crazy here. But don’t give me a one line answer either. Explain in your own words
F) What is the conclusion?
Again this should be obvious if you read the paper.
If you are having a hard time figuring it out, reread the Abstract. That should help you to figure it out
G) Your own perspective – were the data convincing? What other experiments would you have done?
This is the most important part of the critique. YOU MUST ADDRESS EACH OF THESE POINTS
Was the data convincing – don’t accept everything the authors say in the results as gospel. Read the results section and before looking at a relevant figure try to anticipate what the outcome would be. You might or might not be able to pull this off. Now look at the figure itself. Do you believe the authors interpretation? For example in a image of a gel are they talking about a band that you can barely see while a bigger brighter band is right next to it (which the authors ignore)? Or do the authors point at a image of a subcellular structure that you can barely see and looks no different from the control? I need to know what you think and why. It can be outlandish and completely wrong. But you will be rewarded for being critical. Again let me remind you that this is not history or theology. This is science and in science you MUST be skeptical. Fantastic claims need to be backed with fantastic data!
What other experiments would you have done – In most instances this would be difficult. However try to come up with at least one experiment that you could do to back up the authors claims or challenge them. I’m giving you full license to be creative (short of saying you will invent new equipment!) so don’t be afraid to come-up with a outlandish idea (like some of you did with the mid-terms).
Putting it all together
Formatting
- Critique needs to be typed
- Double space, using Times New Roman or Arial font
- Font size should be 12
- Minimum of 1 page and not to exceed 10 pages
Structure the critique using the points I have given (A through G). You can separate them out under headings or as separate paragraphs
You don’t have to copy paste figures UNLESS you want to point out a error or argument that the authors make that you don’t believe.
Most important DO NOT PLAGIARIZE. Again I would like to remind you that I’m now receptive to you’re individual writing styles and will see any plagiarism from a mile away. Don’t do it. You WILL get penalized. DO NOT PLAGIARIZE from the paper you are critiquing. The last slide will tell you what is plagiarism if it’s unclear what I’m talking about.
