Title: Scientific Writing, HRP 214
1Scientific Writing, HRP 214
2Scientific Writing, HRP 214 Weekly Quiz
- A. She eluded to the fight that occurred earlier.
- B. She alluded to the the fight that occurred
earlier.
3Scientific Writing, HRP 214 Weekly Quiz
- A. She eluded to the fight that occurred earlier.
- B. She alluded to the the fight that occurred
earlier.
4Scientific Writing, HRP 214 Weekly Quiz
- A. She eluded the fight.
- B. She alluded the fight.
5Scientific Writing, HRP 214 Weekly Quiz
- A. She eluded the fight.
- B. She alluded the fight.
6Scientific Writing, HRP 214 Weekly Quiz
- A. The close friendship that existed between
them was quickly dissolved. - B. The close friendship that existed among them
was quickly dissolved.
7Scientific Writing, HRP 214Weekly Quiz
- A. The close friendship that existed between
them was quickly dissolved. - B. The close friendship that existed among them
was quickly dissolved.
8Scientific Writing, HRP 214Weekly Quiz
- A. She lies out in the sun.
- B. She lays out in the sun.
9Scientific Writing, HRP 214Weekly Quiz
- A. She lies out in the sun.
- B. She lays out in the sun.
10Scientific Writing, HRP 214Weekly Quiz
- A. She is lying out in the sun.
- B. She is laying out in the sun.
11Scientific Writing, HRP 214Weekly Quiz
- A. She is lying out in the sun.
- B. She is laying out in the sun.
12Scientific Writing, HRP 214Weekly Quiz
- A. She laid out in the sun yesterday.
- B. She lay out in the sun yesterday.
13Scientific Writing, HRP 214Weekly Quiz
- A. She laid out in the sun yesterday.
- B. She lay out in the sun yesterday.
14Scientific Writing, HRP 214Weekly Quiz
- A. She had laid out in the sun too much as a kid.
- B. She had lain out in the sun too much as a kid.
15Scientific Writing, HRP 214Weekly Quiz
- A. She had laid out in the sun too much as a kid.
- B. She had lain out in the sun too much as a kid.
16Scientific Writing, HRP 214Weekly Quiz
- A. She lies the book on the table.
- B. She lays the book on the table.
17Scientific Writing, HRP 214Weekly Quiz
- A. She lies the book on the table.
- B. She lays the book on the table.
18Scientific Writing, HRP 214Weekly Quiz
- A. She is lying the book on the table.
- B. She is laying the book on the table.
19Scientific Writing, HRP 214Weekly Quiz
- A. She is lying the book on the table.
- B. She is laying the book on the table.
20Scientific Writing, HRP 214Weekly Quiz
- A. She laid the book on the table this morning.
- B. She lay the book on the table this morning.
21Scientific Writing, HRP 214Weekly Quiz
- A. She laid the book on the table this morning.
- B. She lay the book on the table this morning.
22Scientific Writing, HRP 214Weekly Quiz
- A. She had lain the book on the table.
- B. She had laid the book on the table.
23Scientific Writing, HRP 214Weekly Quiz
- A. She had lain the book on the table.
- B. She had laid the book on the table.
24Scientific Writing, HRP 214Weekly Quiz
- A. Now I lay down to sleep.
- B. Now I lie down to sleep.
25Scientific Writing, HRP 214Weekly Quiz
- A. Now I lay down to sleep.
- B. Now I lie down to sleep.
26Scientific Writing, HRP 214Weekly Quiz
- A. Now I lay me down to sleep.
- B. Now I lie me down to sleep.
27Scientific Writing, HRP 214Weekly Quiz
- A. Now I lay me down to sleep.
- B. Now I lie me down to sleep.
28Scientific Writing, HRP 214Weekly Quiz
- A. She commented on the clearly defined mutant
traits. - B. She commented on the clearly-defined mutant
traits.
29Scientific Writing, HRP 214Weekly Quiz
- A. She commented on the clearly defined mutant
traits. - B. She commented on the clearly-defined mutant
traits.
30Scientific Writing, HRP 214Weekly Quiz
- A. We studied the affects of the gene on
signaling. - B. We studied the effects of the gene on
signaling.
31Scientific Writing, HRP 214 Weekly Quiz
- A. We studied the affects of the gene on
signaling. - B. We studied the effects of the gene on
signaling.
32Scientific Writing, HRP 214 Weekly Quiz
- A. She was the best-read scientist in the lab.
- B. She was the best read scientist in the lab.
33Scientific Writing, HRP 214Weekly Quiz
- A. She was the best-read scientist in the lab.
- B. She was the best read scientist in the lab.
34Scientific Writing, HRP 214Weekly Quiz
- A. The previously-reported data were suspect.
- B. The previously reported data were suspect.
35Scientific Writing, HRP 214Weekly Quiz
- A. The previously-reported data were suspect.
- B. The previously reported data were suspect.
36Scientific Writing, HRP 214 Weekly Quiz
- A. She was a well-known scientist.
- B. She was a well known scientist.
37Scientific Writing, HRP 214Weekly Quiz
- A. She was a well-known scientist.
- B. She was a well known scientist.
38Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. He owed over 1000 to the doctor.
- B. He owed more than 1000 to the doctor.
39Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. He owed over 1000 to the doctor.
- B. He owed more than 1000 to the doctor.
40Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. The negotiators effected an agreement.
- B. The negotiators affected an agreement.
41Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. The negotiators effected an agreement.
- B. The negotiators affected an agreement.
42Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. D-day was a historic day.
- B. D-day was a historical day.
43Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. D-day was a historic day.
- B. D-day was a historical day.
- Actually both!
44Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. Your procrastination had an averse effect on
your grade. - B. Your procrastination had an adverse effect on
your grade.
45Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. Your procrastination had an averse effect on
your grade. - B. Your procrastination had an adverse effect on
your grade.
46Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. The bacteria were treated gently.
- B. The bacteria was treated gently.
47Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. The bacteria were treated gently.
- B. The bacteria was treated gently.
48Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. Fewer men are in the class than women.
- B. Less men are in the class than women.
49Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. Fewer men are in the class than women.
- B. Less men are in the class than women.
50Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. Im averse to banana flavor.
- B. Im adverse to banana flavor.
51Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. Im averse to banana flavor.
- B. Im adverse to banana flavor.
52Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. That man and I were talking.
- B. That man and me were talking.
53Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. That man and I were talking.
- B. That man and me were talking.
54Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. She told Bob and me that the end was near.
- B. She told Bob and I that the end was near.
55Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. She told Bob and me that the end was near.
- B. She told Bob and I that the end was near.
56Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. I always thought it was further to the moon.
- B. I always thought it was farther to the moon.
57Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. I always thought it was further to the moon.
- B. I always thought it was farther to the moon.
58Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. That 17th-century pot is a historical piece.
- B. That 17th-century pot is a historic piece.
59Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. That 17th-century pot is a historical piece.
- B. That 17th-century pot is a historic piece.
60Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. Between you and I, we should have it done in
no time. - B. Between you and me, we should have it done in
no time.
61Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. Between you and I, we should have it done in
no time. - B. Between you and me, we should have it done in
no time.
62Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. He died of unknown causes.
- B. He died from unknown causes.
63Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. He died of unknown causes.
- B. He died from unknown causes.
64Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. Binge drinking causes adverse health effects.
- B. Binge drinking causes averse health effects.
65Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. Binge drinking causes adverse health effects.
- B. Binge drinking causes averse health effects.
66Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. To whom did you betray my secret?
- B. To who did you betray my secret?
67Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. To whom did you betray my secret?
- B. To who did you betray my secret?
68Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. The person about who you speak is a fool.
- B. The person about whom you speak is a fool.
69Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. The person about who you speak is a fool.
- B. The person about whom you speak is a fool.
70Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. Its my head on the line.
- B. Its my head on the line.
71Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. Its my head on the line.
- B. Its my head on the line.
72Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. The 20-pound weight loss helped his
self-confidence. - B. The 20 pound weight loss helped his
self-confidence.
73Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. The 20-pound weight loss helped his
self-confidence. - B. The 20 pound weight loss helped his
self-confidence.
74Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. Its head was on the chopping block.
- B. Its head was on the chopping block.
75Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. Its head was on the chopping block.
- B. Its head was on the chopping block.
76Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. The prevalence of autism is 10 out of 1,000
people. - B. The incidence of autism is 10 out of 1,000
people.
77Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. The prevalence of autism is 10 out of 1,000
people. - B. The incidence of autism is 10 out of 1,000
people.
78Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. She could have made it further in life.
- B. She could have made it farther in life.
79Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. She could have made it further in life.
- B. She could have made it farther in life.
80Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. She doesnt take compliments well.
- B. She doesnt take complements well.
81Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. She doesnt take compliments well.
- B. She doesnt take complements well.
82Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. Hes not rational at that time of the day.
- B. Hes not rationale at that time of the day.
83Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. Hes not rational at that time of the day.
- B. Hes not rationale at that time of the day.
84Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. Her rationale was that the drugs would help
alleviate the pain. - B. Her rational was that the drugs would help
alleviate the pain.
85Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. Her rationale was that the drugs would help
alleviate the pain. - B. Her rational was that the drugs would help
alleviate the pain.
86Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. Bob and I were very fond of the piece.
- B. Bob and me were very fond of the piece.
87Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. Bob and I were very fond of the piece.
- B. Bob and me were very fond of the piece.
88Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. That action violated her principles.
- B. That action violated her principals.
89Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. That action violated her principles.
- B. That action violated her principals.
90Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. Cream and chocolate comprise chocolate sauce.
- B. Cream and chocolate compose chocolate sauce.
91Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. Cream and chocolate comprise chocolate sauce.
- B. Cream and chocolate compose chocolate sauce.
92Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. The dessert was comprised of cream and
chocolate. - B. The dessert was composed of cream and
chocolate.
93Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. The dessert was comprised of cream and
chocolate. - B. The dessert was composed of cream and
chocolate.
94Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. Chocolate sauce composes cream and chocolate.
- B. Chocolate sauce comprises cream and chocolate.
95Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. Chocolate sauce composes cream and chocolate.
- B. Chocolate sauce comprises cream and chocolate.
96Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. Cream and chocolate are comprised in chocolate
sauce. - B. Cream and chocolate are composed of
- chocolate sauce.
97Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. Cream and chocolate are comprised in chocolate
sauce. - B. Cream and chocolate are composed of
- chocolate sauce.
98Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. She accepted the compliment without a word.
- B. She accepted the complement without a word.
99Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. She accepted the compliment without a word.
- B. She accepted the complement without a word.
100Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. You should take some ice cream its
complimentary. - B. You should take some ice cream its
complementary.
101Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. You should take some ice cream its
complimentary. - B. You should take some ice cream its
complementary.
102Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. Those colors are complementary.
- B. Those colors are complimentary.
103Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. Those colors are complementary.
- B. Those colors are complimentary.
104Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. Each person is responsible for their grade.
- B. Each person is responsible for his grade.
105Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. Each person is responsible for their grade.
- B. Each person is responsible for his grade.
106Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. She commented on the clearly defined mutant
traits. - B. She commented on the clearly-defined mutant
traits.
107Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. She commented on the clearly defined mutant
traits. - B. She commented on the clearly-defined mutant
traits.
108Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. I like books, chocolate, and coffee.
- B. I like books, chocolate and coffee.
109Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. I like books, chocolate, and coffee.
- B. I like books, chocolate and coffee.
110Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. She was self-employed.
- B. She was self employed.
111Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. She was self-employed.
- B. She was self employed.
112Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. She was the best-read scientist in the lab.
- B. She was the best read scientist in the lab.
113Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. She was the best-read scientist in the lab.
- B. She was the best read scientist in the lab.
114Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. The previously-reported data were suspect.
- B. The previously reported data were suspect.
115Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. The previously-reported data were suspect.
- B. The previously reported data were suspect.
116Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. That was pre-SARS.
- B. That was pre SARS.
117Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. That was pre-SARS.
- B. That was pre SARS.
118Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. He cited the widely-believed fallacy.
- B. He cited the widely believed fallacy.
119Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. He cited the widely-believed fallacy.
- B. He cited the widely believed fallacy.
120Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. She was a well-known scientist.
- B. She was a well known scientist.
121Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. She was a well-known scientist.
- B. She was a well known scientist.
122Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. She was well-known.
- B. She was well known.
123Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. She was well-known.
- B. She was well known.
124Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. He counted six pies.
- B. He counted 6 pies.
125Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. He counted six pies.
- B. He counted 6 pies.
126Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. She was affected by the war.
- B. She was effected by the war.
127Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. She was affected by the war.
- B. She was effected by the war.
128Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. The affects of the war were devastating.
- B. The effects of the war were devastating.
129Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. The affects of the war were devastating.
- B. The effects of the war were devastating.
130Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. The bacteria that I was trying to grow died.
- B. The bacteria which I was trying to grow died.
131Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. The bacteria that I was trying to grow died.
- B. The bacteria which I was trying to grow died.
132Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. The car, which I didnt particularly like,
finally died. - B. The car, that I didnt particularly like,
finally died.
133Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. The car, which I didnt particularly like,
finally died. - B. The car, that I didnt particularly like,
finally died.
134Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. He displayed a distressing lack of effect.
- B. He displayed a distressing lack of affect.
135Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. He displayed a distressing lack of effect.
- B. He displayed a distressing lack of affect.
136Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. The negotiators effected an agreement.
- B. The negotiators affected an agreement.
137Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. The negotiators effected an agreement.
- B. The negotiators affected an agreement.
138Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. ROC curves were developed in the 1950s as a
by-product of research into making sense of radio
signals contaminated by noise. - B. ROCs were developed in the 1950s as a
by-product of research into making sense of radio
signals contaminated by noise.
139Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- ROC curves were developed in the 1950s as a
by-product of research into making sense of radio
signals contaminated by noise. - B. ROCs were developed in the 1950s as a
by-product of research into making sense of radio
signals contaminated by noise.
140Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. That strain of HIV virus is highly
transmissible. - B. That strain of HIV is highly transmissible.
141Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- A. That strain of HIV virus is highly
transmissible. - B. That strain of HIV is highly transmissible.
142Scientific Writing, HRP 214
143Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- 1900s
- The 1900s were from 1900 to1909 (just as the
1990s were from 1990 to 1999) - Do you mean 1900 to 1999?
- Use the twentieth century
144Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- 300 more
- DOES NOT EQUAL
- 300 as much
- AND
- Risk was three times greater than (x 3x)
- DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS
- Risk was three times as great as (3x)
145Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- George Orwell on clichés and other frivolities
- Phrases like a not justifiable assumption,
leaves much to be desired, would serve no good
purpose, a consideration which we should do well
to bear in mind, are a continuous temptation, a
packet of aspirins always at one's elbow.
146Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- Blaise Pascal on the elegance in brevity
- I have only made this letter rather long because
I have not had time to make it shorter. (Je
n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parceque je
n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte.) - --Lettres provinciales, 16, Dec.14,1656
- (though reference also attributed to St.
Augustine, and Cicero.)
147HRP 214 Scientific Writing
- Lecture 9
- Post-publication
- Working with the media
- Peer review
148The Media
- Dealing with the media.
- Points for discussion.
- 1. Where do journalists get ideas for stories?
- From scientific journals and meetings (science
journalists) - From online collections, such as
Eurekalert(www.eurekalert.org) - From each other
- From your institutions press releases (prepared
by PIO officers) - From following trends
149The Media
- 2. Being interviewed by a journalist.
- Points to keep in mind
- 1. Assume that you are being recorded.
- 2. Pretend that you are talking to your
grandmother. - 3. Avoid jargon altogether.
- 4. Try to tell it like a story.
- 5. Always start with the big picture.
- 6. Unless you are being interviewed by a PIO
officer or sympathetic intern, you will NOT be
given an opportunity to approve the article ahead
of time. At most, you may be able to ask to see
your direct quotes ahead of time.
150Scientific Writing, HRP 214
- Be aware of what journalists are looking for.
- News stories follows a basic formula (just as
scientific journal articles do) - Headline
- Lead
- Nut Graf
- First quote (3-6 paragraphs down)brings in the
human element and overall significance - More details and more quotes (inverted pyramid
style) - Kicker (often a strong quote)
151The Media
- 2. Being interviewed by a journalist.
- What the journalist is waiting to hear, and
will use in his/her article - big picture ties
- how your research affects people (i.e., their
readers) - whats different or new about your results (the
news hook) - colorful prose (makes a good kicker)
- interesting stories (anecdotes) (makes a good
lead) - paradox/irony/surprise (also makes a good lead)
- people-focused stories
- historical facts/the development of the idea
- sweeping comments about the significance of the
work (makes a good first quote) - controversy/criticism or laudatory praise, if
you are being asked to comment on a peers
research -
152The Media
- What journalists do not want to hear and will
not quote you on - experimental details (unless they need specific
clarifications, which they will ask for
directly) - statistical details
- nuances, subtleties
- jargon
-
153The Media
- 3. Explaining risk to a journalist.
- Be careful what you say.
- Assume that the journalist does not have a good
concept of risk, probability, and statistics. - Remember that the journalist is looking for
significance, surprise, and news that affects
people therefore, they may seize upon a fact or
figure that is shocking, surprising, or alarming
if you give them the opportunity. - Relative risk can be high even if absolute risk
is low - The risk to public health can be high even if the
risk to individual health is low. -
154Describing Risk
- Example the womens health initiative
- Relative risk for invasive breast cancer 1.26
- Relative risk for coronary heart disease 1.29
- Best translation for the public?
- Women have a 26 increased risk of breast cancer
and a 29 increased risk of heart disease if they
take hormones?
155Baseline risks and percentages
- Risk of invasive breast cancer
- 37/10,000 person-years for treatment .0037
- 30/10,000 person-years for controls .0030
- ?Absolute risk increases by .07
- Risk of heart disease
- 38/10,000 person-years for treatment .0038
- 30/10,000 person-years for controls .0030
- ?Absolute risk increases by .08
156Baseline risks and percentages
- 26 increased risk of breast cancer and 29
increased risk of heart disease sounds impressive
and scary. - Better to report
- 8 more CHD events per 10,000 women/year
- 7 more invasive breast cancers 10,000 women/year
157Peer Review
- If you are the reviewer, a few tips
158Peer Review Tone
- Assume there is some poor graduate student on the
other end who did all the work, and whose
confidence and career depend on your critique. - Tone matters!
- E.g. The authors should delete table 5 not only
is it completely irrelevant, but it also reveals
their utter lack of statistical understanding. - vs. Table 5 contains unnecessary information
(for example), and a Pearsons correlation
coefficient may not be appropriate here. The
authors should consider revising or omitting the
table.
159Peer Review Tone
- Avoid criticizing the authors! Criticize the
work. - Avoid generalizations point out specific errors.
- Use positive instead of negative language where
possible The paper is poorly written. vs. The
writing and presentation could be improved. For
example - Avoid lecturing to the authors.
160Peer Review Process
- My system..
- 1. Scan the abstract.
- 2. Jump to the data review the tables and
figures first. - Draw your own conclusions.
- Do the tables and figures stand on their own?
- Are there any obvious statistical errors?
- Is there repetitive information?
- 3. Read the paper once through.
- Do the authors conclusions match their data?
- Is the paper clearly written, or did you struggle
to get through it? You should not have to
struggle! - Is the length of the paper justified given the
amount of new information that the data provide?
161Peer Review Process
- 4. Read the introduction carefully.
- Is it three paragraphs long (or close)? Does it
roughly follow known--gtunknown--gtresearch
question/hypothesis? - Is there detailed information about what was done
that belongs in the methods? - Is there information about what was found? If so,
it should be moved to the results. - Is there distracting information about previous
studies or mechanisms that are not directly
relevant to the hypothesis being tested. If so,
it should be moved to the discussion. - Do the authors tell you what gaps in the
literature they are trying to fill in?
162Peer Review Process
- 5. Read the methods carefully.
- Scan this section to find answers to your
questions about the data. - Were things measured objectively or subjectively?
What instruments were used? - Are there flaws in the study design, such as no
control group? - Read the statistics section carefully.
- 6. Read the results carefully.
- Read this section with the tables and figures in
front of you. - Does each section roughly correspond to one table
or figure? - Do the authors summarize the main trends and
themes from the table, or do they just repeat
what is in the tables? - If there are graphs, do the authors give precise
numerical values in the text if it is not given
in the graph? - Are the authors honest or do they try to draw
your eye to what they want you to see?? - Do the authors over-interpret statistical
significance, by ignoring the fact that the
magnitude is small or by ignoring the fact that
they have done multiple subgroup analyses? - Is this section unnecessarily long?
163Peer Review Process
- 7. Look at each table and figure.
- Did the authors choose the correct statistics?
- Is there repetitive information in a single
table, such as both p-values and standard errors? - Are there multiple tables or figures that tell
the same story? For example, Table 2 gives
parameter estimates from a logistic regression
model and Table 3 gives odds ratios from the same
model and Figure 1 plots the odds ratio
confidence intervals. Or Table 1 gives the mean
values for two groups and indicates statistical
significance from a ttest and Table 2 gives
confidence intervals for the differences in means
for the same data. - Did the authors adjust for confounding and
consider interactions? - Is there evidence of data dredging or
purposefully omitting data? - Are any graphs misleading, e.g. through
manipulation of area or axes? - Is the treatment group always compared with a
proper control/placebo group? - Are there inconsistencies in the data they
present from one table to the next? - Did the authors make transcribing errors when
going from the data in tables/results to the
abstract?
164Peer Review Process
- 8. Read the discussion carefully.
- Does the first paragraph succinctly and clearly
tell you what was found and what is new? - Are the authors conclusions justified or are
they overreaching? - Do they clearly distinguish hypothesis-driven
conclusions and exploratory conclusions? - Is the writing clear and to the point (active
voice!)? Is there some sense of order and
structure or are they just rambling on aimlessly? - Could the discussion be shortened?
- Did they address the limitations you care about?
(as opposed to any old irrelevant limitations
that they threw in just to have some) - Are the references that they cite current?
- Have they omitted key references?
165Peer Review Content
- Comments to authors
- 1. Start with a one-paragraph general overview.
- State what you think is the major finding and
importance of the work - Give 2-3 positive, encouraging statements about
the work. If the methods are crap, is the writing
nice, for example? Is the research question
particularly interesting or novel? (E.g., This
is an interesting manuscript, with several
strengths. The authors should be commended for
The finding that . is important.) - State 1-2 major limitations (if there are any) to
the study design, writing/presentation, or
conclusions. (E.g., The study is limited because
there is no control group. The overall writing
or presentation needs improvement. The authors
may have over-stated their findings. The paper
provides only weak evidence for its conclusions.
The study is exploratory, not hypothesis-driven.
) - Do not tell the authors your overall
recommendation (rejection, acceptance).
166Peer Review Content
- Comments to authors
- 2. In a numbered list, give 5-15 specific
criticisms/suggestions for revision. The number
will often correspond to your recommendation
(give the most if you are recommending
opportunity for revision.) - Point out specific mistakes.
- List the issues that you found in your review.
- Give specific recommendations for revision.
167Peer Review Content
- Comments to editors
- 1. Fill out journal grading sheet.
- 2. Choose your recommendation
- Reject (33)
- Reject with opportunity to revise. (33)
- Accept with minor revision (33)
- Accept.
- 3. Give a succinct overall statement to the
editors that justifies your ranking. State the
papers major strengths and weakness. (I often
borrow material from my comments to the authors.)
168- REVIEWER ? EDITOR!!!
- Do not be spend your time nit-picking. Focus on
big-picture issues. - If the manuscript has a lot of copy-editing
errors, point this out in a general way and give
one or two examples, e.g. The manuscript
contains typos, such as
169Peer Review grading sheet, example
- Impact of ResearchTOP 10 __TOP 25
__Top 50 __Bottom 50 _X_Bottom 25
__Bottom 10 __Originality of
ResultsMethodology and Data QualityOVERALL
MANUSCRIPT RANK
170Peer Review Final comments
- The first one you do will take a long time. You
will get progressively faster at these as you go
along. - Review unto others as you would want to be
reviewed!