Brief Review of Preparing Journal Club Talks and Referee Reports

1

• Brief Review of Preparing Journal Club Talks and
  Referee Reports

Lance Cooper
2
Journal Club

• Rules of the Club
• We know you are not an expert
• But, you can become a guide
• Read the paper
• Look for additional resources to distill it
  e.g., talks given by the authors usually have the
  right emphasis
• Understand the topic, present it clearly, lead
  the discussion
• How to choose a paper?
• We selected appropriate papers see website
• Go through these to see what looks interesting

3
Preparing your journal club talks
Read article carefully and critically Take notes
while reading Read related articles or
background texts if necessary to understand
material Seek out local experts (or me!) if you
have questions about the article!
4
Journal club talks should be presented in four
steps
Step 1 Summarize the article Provide details
what, when, where, why, how What are authors
main messages? Are there controversial issues
involved?
5
Step 2 Compare/contrast the article
Was there earlier work? (note the
references) Are there disagreements with other
work? Are there alternative interpretations of
these results?
6
Step 3 Critique and question
Objective Did the authors support their
points? Objective Was the support offered
valid? Subjective Did you find the paper
interesting or important? Subjective Do you
feel the paper will have strong impact, and if
so, why?
7
Step 4 Present your conclusions

• Recap the authors main messages
• Summarize your main points about the paper
• Make suggestions for further reading

8
Organizing a 20-minute scientific talk

• Background and Introduction (24 minutes)
• Title slide with authors and paper reference
• Overview slide Why is this research important?
• ? 12 slides to provide essential background

Body (912 minutes) Develop only one or two main
ideas (2 slides each) Journal Club Provide
critique of paper ? 57 slides
Summary (1 minute) Review the main points
(Journal Club talk review both authors and
your points) ? 1 slide
Questions (3 minutes) (Know your audience!) ?
34 back-up slides
9

• Tips For Writing Referee Reports

10
Refereeing vs. Reading Scientific Papers
When you read a refereed journal article you are
more likely to presume that the details of the
experiment or calculation are correct, and that
the research is original and significant
(although you are likely to form your own
impressions about this, of course!) As a
referee, your job is to carefully evaluate the
originality and significance of the work, the
validity of the experiments/calculation, and the
reasonableness of the conclusions drawn. In
other words, no presumptions should be made about
the quality of the workyou should read the paper
with an open mind
11
Essential Components of a Good Referee Report
(1). Briefly summarize the main points of the
paper ? to educate the editor ? to convince
the editor and other referees that youve
actually read the paper (no joke!) (2).
Provide brief evaluations of the different
criteria provided by the journal These
generally include (i) the quality/appropriate
ness of the methodologies and techniques
used in the research (ii) the quality of the
logical arguments made to arrive at the key
conclusions of the paper (iii) the clarity of
the presentation
12
Essential Components of a Good Referee
Report(cont.)
(3). Provide a recommendation for or against
publication Your recommendation can be
equivocal if you provide sufficient discussion
of the pros and cons of publication If you
do recommend rejecting a paper, you can suggest
alternate journals to which the paper might be
more appropriately submitted (4). List
essential and suggested changes to the paper
This is an important component of a report
even if you recommend rejecting the paper, as
your suggestions might allow the paper to be
published elsewhere, or even in the same journal
after revision!
13
The Right Attitude Referees Golden Rule
Review unto others as you would have them review
unto you!
You should approach refereeing a paper with a
sense of constructive objectivity Avoid
scientific bias about the subject matter or the
general viewpoint of the field Ignore any
preconceptions you might have about the authors
involved in the work Your report should be
written constructively Provide constructive
criticism, expressed in a collegial manner, that
can benefit both the authors and
editors. Collegially point out experimental
problems, flaws in the authors argument, or
alternative interpretations not proposed by the
authors Provide appropriate references of
previous work if inadequate credit is given to
previous work Try to provide timely reports
14
The Physical Review Letters (PRL) Criteria
(1). Importance
(2). Broad interest
(3). Validity
(4). Accessibility
15
The Physical Review Letters (PRL) Criteria
Validity - Is the work scientifically sound? If
not, do you believe the paper can be revised to
correct the scientific defects you find? Are the
arguments made to draw the conclusions logically
constructed and well-founded? Importance - Does
the manuscript report substantial research? Is
the conclusion very important to the field to
which it pertains? Is the research at the
forefront of a rapidly changing field? Will the
work have a significant impact on future
research? Broad interest - Papers are of broad
interest if they report a substantial advance in
a subfield of physics or if they have significant
implications across subfield boundaries. Is the
paper of broad interest? Accessibility Is the
paper written so that it is understandable by the
broad PRL audience? Is there an introduction
which indicates, to the interested non-specialist
reader, the basic physics issues addressed, and
the primary achievements? Are assumptions
clearly presented? Is unnecessary jargon avoided?
Do the title and abstract stand alone? Are tables
and figures, if any, well used and effectively
presented?