Your Assignment. To help prepare you to read reviews for pretty much the rest of your medical career AND prepare the introduction to your thesis (not the publishable version!), you will write a review paper covering the topics implied by the research question in your thesis. There are two approaches to this assignment. First, you can write the review with eventual publication (or some other use) in mind. Students in this class have published their reviews (not many, but it does happen) and their work has been used by their labs as part of the groundwork for new students. In at least one instance, the PI was so impressed with the review that the student was asked to draft the intro to the publishable version based on the work. When diving in deeper, first I try to assess whether all the important papers are cited in the references sample personal statements for scholarships essay, as that also often correlates with the quality of the manuscript itself. Then, right in the Introduction, you can often recognize whether the authors considered the full context of their topic. After that, I check whether all the experiments and data make sense, paying particular attention to whether the authors carefully designed and performed the experiments and whether they analyzed and interpreted the results in a comprehensible way. It is also very important that the authors guide you through the whole article and explain every table, every figure, and every scheme. I used to sign most of my reviews, but I don't do that anymore. If you make a practice of signing reviews, then over the years, many of your colleagues will have received reviews with your name on them. Even if you are focused on writing quality reviews and being fair and collegial, it's inevitable that some colleagues will be less than appreciative about the content of the reviews. And if you identify a paper that you think has a substantial error that is not easily fixed, then the authors of this paper will find it hard to not hold a grudge. I've known too many junior scientists who have been burned from signing their reviews early on in their careers. So now, I only sign my reviews so as to be fully transparent on the rare occasions when I suggest that the authors cite papers of mine, which I only do when my work will remedy factual errors or correct the claim that something has never been addressed before. It is necessary to maintain decorum: One should review the paper justly and entirely on its merit example of a good thesis outline, even if it comes from a competing research group. Finally, there are occasions where you get extremely exciting papers that you might be tempted to share with your colleagues, but you have to resist the urge and maintain strict confidentiality. This varies widely, from a few minutes if there is clearly a major problem with the paper to half a day if the paper is really interesting but there are aspects that I don't understand. Occasionally, there are difficulties with a potentially publishable article that I think I can't properly assess in half a day, in which case I will return the paper to the journal with an explanation and a suggestion for an expert who might be closer to that aspect of the research. The decision comes along during reading and making notes. If there are serious mistakes or missing parts, then I do not recommend publication. I usually write down all the things that I noticed, good and bad academic writing research paper sample, so my decision does not influence the content and length of my review. I generally read on the computer and start with the Abstract to get an initial impression. Then I read the paper as a whole, thoroughly and from beginning to end, taking notes as I read. For me, the first question is this: Is the research sound? And secondly, how can it be improved? Basically, I am looking to see if the research question is well motivated; if the data are sound; if the analyses are technically correct; and, most importantly, if the findings support the claims made in the paper. As I go along, I use a highlighter and other pens cover letter restaurant manager, so the manuscript is usually colorful after I read it. Besides that, I make notes on an extra sheet. - Michael Callaham , emergency care physician and researcher at the University of California, San Francisco If the research presented in the paper has serious flaws, I am inclined to recommend rejection, unless the shortcoming can be remedied with a reasonable amount of revising. Also, I take the point of view that if the author cannot convincingly explain her study and findings to an informed reader, then the paper has not met the burden for acceptance in the journal. In my experience, most papers go through several rounds of revisions before I would recommend them for publication. Generally, if I can see originality and novelty in a manuscript and the study was carried out in a solid way, then I give a recommendation for “revise and resubmit,” highlighting the need for the analysis strategy, for example, to be further developed. However, if the mechanism being tested does not really provide new knowledge, or if the method and study design are of insufficient quality, then my hopes for a manuscript are rather low. The length and content of my reviews generally do not relate to the outcome of my decisions. I usually write rather lengthy reviews at the first round of the revision process, and these tend to get shorter as the manuscript then improves in quality. The paper reviewing process can help you form your own scientific opinion and develop critical thinking skills. It will also provide you with an overview of the new advances in the field and help you when writing and submitting your own articles. So although peer reviewing definitely takes some effort, in the end it will be worth it. Also, the journal has invited you to review an article based on your expertise, but there will be many things you don’t know. So if you have not fully understood something in the paper, do not hesitate to ask for clarification. It will help you make the right decision. I try to be as constructive as possible. A review is primarily for the benefit of the editor, to help them reach a decision about whether to publish or not, but I try to make my reviews useful for the authors as well. I always write my reviews as though I am talking to the scientists in person. I try hard to avoid rude or disparaging remarks. The review process is brutal enough scientifically without reviewers making it worse. My reviews tend to take the form of a summary of the arguments in the paper what are features of an essay, followed by a summary of my reactions and then a series of the specific points that I wanted to raise. Mostly, I am trying to identify the authors’ claims in the paper that I did not find convincing and guide them to ways that these points can be strengthened (or, perhaps, dropped as beyond the scope of what this study can support). If I find the paper especially interesting (and even if I am going to recommend rejection), I tend to give a more detailed review because I want to encourage the authors to develop the paper (or, maybe, to do a new paper along the lines suggested in the review). My tone is one of trying to be constructive and helpful even though, of course, the authors might not agree with that characterization. - Terry McGlynn , professor of biology at California State University, Dominguez Hills I make a decision after drafting my review. I usually sit on the review for a day and then reread it to be sure it is balanced and fair before deciding anything. I consider four factors: whether I'm sufficiently knowledgeable about the topic to offer an intelligent assessment, how interesting I find the research topic, whether I’m free of any conflict of interest, and whether I have the time. If the answer to all four questions is yes, then I’ll usually agree to review. I start with a brief summary of the results and conclusions as a way to show that I have understood the paper and have a general opinion. I always comment on the form of the paper an essay about home, highlighting whether it is well written, has correct grammar, and follows a correct structure. Then, I divide the review in two sections with bullet points, first listing the most critical aspects that the authors must address to better demonstrate the quality and novelty of the paper and then more minor points such as misspelling and figure format. When you deliver criticism, your comments should be honest but always respectful and accompanied with suggestions to improve the manuscript. Remember that a review is not about whether one likes a certain piece of work, but whether the research is valid and tells us something new. Another common mistake is writing an unfocused review that is lost in the details. You can better highlight the major issues that need to be dealt with by restructuring the review, summarizing the important issues upfront, or adding asterisks. I would really encourage other scientists to take up peer-review opportunities whenever possible. Reviewing is a great learning experience and an exciting thing to do. One gets to know super fresh research firsthand and gain insight into other authors’ argument structure. I also think it is our duty as researchers to write good reviews. After all, we are all in it together. The soundness of the entire peer-review process depends on the quality of the reviews that we write. The main aspects I consider are the novelty of the article and its impact on the field. I always ask myself what makes this paper relevant and what new advance or contribution the paper represents. Then I follow a routine that will help me evaluate this. First, I check the authors’ publication records in PubMed to get a feel for their expertise in the field. I also consider whether the article contains a good Introduction and description of the state of the art, as that indirectly shows whether the authors have a good knowledge of the field. Second, I pay attention to the results and whether they have been compared with other similar published studies. Third, I consider whether the results or the proposed methodology have some potential broader applicability or relevance, because in my opinion this is important. Finally, I evaluate whether the methodology used is appropriate. If the authors have presented a new tool or software, I will test it in detail. It can take me quite a long time to write a good review, sometimes a full day of work and sometimes even longer. The detailed reading and the sense-making process, in particular, takes a long time. Also, sometimes I notice that something is not quite right but can’t quite put my finger on it until I have properly digested the manuscript. I only make a recommendation to accept, revise, or reject if the journal specifically requests one. The decision is made by the editor, and my job as a reviewer is to provide a nuanced and detailed report on the paper to support the editor. I usually don’t decide on a recommendation until I’ve read the entire paper, although for poor quality papers, it isn’t always necessary to read everything. RESEARCHING A TOPIC
Trends in Ecology & Evolution WHAT IS A REVIEW PAPER? Your paper should consist of four general sections: Overview of the Paper: CHOOSING A TOPIC The purpose of a review paper is to succinctly review recent progress in a particular topic. Overall, the paper summarizes the current state of knowledge of the topic. It creates an understanding of the topic for the reader by discussing the findings presented in recent research papers. 27. Rosenberg D (2003) Early modern information overload. J Hist Ideas 64. 1–9 doi:10.1353/jhi.2003.0017 When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their career working on a certain research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature. Some graduate schools are now offering courses in reviewing the literature, given that most research students start their project by producing an overview of what has already been done on their research issue [6]. However, it is likely that most scientists have not thought in detail about how to approach and carry out a literature review. 22. Kelleher C example dissertation topics in social work, Wagener T (2011) Ten guidelines for effective data visualization in scientific publications. Environ Model Softw 26. 822–827 doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.12.006 While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines. Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft. the outstanding research questions. 7. Budgen D, Brereton P (2006) Performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Proc 28th Int Conf Software Engineering, ACM New York, NY, USA 185 toefl essay topics, pp. 1051–1052. doi:10.1145/1134285.1134500. Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies psychology coursework a level, of course, to older, overlooked studies (“sleeping beauties” [26] )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society. 21. Ridley D (2008) The literature review: a step-by-step guide for students. London: SAGE. Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 ,17. Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18]. If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas. define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and 13. Rosenfeld RM (1996) How to systematically review the medical literature. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 115. 53–63 doi:10.1016/S0194-5998(96)70137-7 [PubMed ] 25. Logan DW, Sandal M, Gardner PP, Manske M, Bateman A (2010) Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia. PLoS Comput Biol 6. e1000941 doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000941 [PMC free article ] [PubMed ] 29. Bertamini M, Munafò MR (2012) Bite-size science and its undesired side effects. Perspect Psychol Sci 7. 67–71 doi:10.1177/1745691611429353 [PubMed ] 32. Tsafnat G, Dunn A, Glasziou P, Coiera E (2013) The automation of systematic reviews. BMJ 346. f139 doi:10.1136/bmj.f139 [PubMed ] use a paper management system (e.g. Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente), In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25]. Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it. 4. Hampton SE, Parker JN (2011) Collaboration and productivity in scientific synthesis. Bioscience 61. 900–910 doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.11.9 How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review. On the one hand to write a dissertation, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8]. The topic must at least be: 2. Pautasso M (2010) Worsening file-drawer problem in the abstracts of natural, medical and social science databases. Scientometrics 85. 193–202 doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0233-5 12. Khoo CSG, Na JC, Jaidka K (2011) Analysis of the macro-level discourse structure of literature reviews. Online Info Rev 35. 255–271 doi:10.1108/14684521111128032 If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review. look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters. discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews, 18. Wagner CS, Roessner JD, Bobb K how to write a 6 sat essay, Klein JT, Boyack KW, et al. (2011) Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): a review of the literature. J Informetr 5. 14–26 doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.004
0 Kommentare
Hinterlasse eine Antwort. |