Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
15 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is the typical structure of a paper?
|
Title, author list, affiliation.
Summary (abstract) Introduction Materials and Methods Results (and figures) Discussion Acknowledgements References |
|
|
What should the introduction consist of?
|
Should give a clear idea as to why the study was set out and what it aimed to investigate:
- Should set out the background of the study - A clear statement of the hypothesis - The rationale of the study; how the design allows specific predictions to be tested and alternatives excluded |
|
|
What should/might the methods include?
|
Each technique used should be described, either in detail or through a reference.
if it is the main technique of the work, it should be described in detail other lab members should be able - based on the information - to perform the technique/repeat the experiment describe some techniques more superficially and provide references for detail give references only for the remaining techniques |
|
|
What should the results include?
|
should contain all data (almost always in summarised form)
should explain and justify the analytical approach taken should contain explanatory text, but should be confined simply to the analyses and presentation of the data should not contain interpretation or conclusions that might be inferred from the data |
|
|
What should the discussion include?
|
Do the results prove/disprove the hypothesis under question?
Findings should be related to those of others main results discussed interpretation, reasonable speculation, comments, comparisons, conclusions, future work, limitations |
|
|
How to judge the quality of papers?
|
journal of publication
how is it regarded in reviews? how often and over which time period is it cited? |
|
|
What are the best journals? What are the next best?
|
Cell, Nature, Science.
Next best: neuron, nature neuroscience, journal of neuroscience |
|
|
What is the impact factor of a journal?
|
The average number of citations of a paper in a journal. nature was top of 2009. but has been criticised as unfair, e.g. reviews are cited far more often than original research.
|
|
|
What is the faculty of 1000?
|
recommendations from over 1000 leading scientists
insider's guide to the most important papers in a particular field of interest highlights papers on their scientific merit rather than in which journal they appear provides an important complement to the indirect assessment provided by the impact factor |
|
|
Give some other good review sources
|
current opinion in neurobiology - summary of progress in a particular area in the last year
nature reviews neuroscience annual review of neuroscience trends in neurobiology |
|
|
how to tell how often it has been cited?
|
google scholar
|
|
|
How to get insight into a new topic?
|
pubmed search
new issues of selected journals talk to lab members phase 0: concentrate on top journals phase I: screen the article - scan title for keywords, check authors names Phase II: get the "punch line" - scan the abstract looking for key words. Read the introduction. find key references in introduction Phase III: understanding the approach - go to the discussion, read first and last few paragraphs. scan figures and tables. Phase IV: read paper in detail. or not. |
|
|
Describe some difficulties in reading a paper
|
lack of background information from the reader
poorly written: some scientists are bad writers, or topic is overfamiliar making the prose impenetrable logical connections may be left out paper cluttered with jargon authors do not provide clear roadmap side issues are given as much airtime as salient ones No explicit description of what the experiment actually was authors can be under critical of their own work because they may: firmly believe in one model and dismiss others, don't discuss limitations, overstate findings, do not mention that other interpretations are also consistent with the data. |
|
|
What stages are there in the publication of a paper?
|
experiments and data
manuscript selection of journal submission editorial decision Then either: rejection, acceptance, reviewing, revision, resubmission, rewriting etc.. |
|
|
What are the main 3 grant funding agencies in the Uk? What is the process of getting a grant?
|
Wellcome trust, medical research council, ERC, BBSRC
loop: preliminary data, previous publications in field grant submission review process preselection (triage) board meeting - rejection (back to beginning)/acceptance |
