What was the objective of the study? If your Abstract was the only part of the paper you could access, would you be happy with the information presented there? Unfortunately for the readers of this periodical, I must report that the conclusion of my critique will be that Dr. Additionally, reviewers identify any scientific errors and references that are missing or incorrect. Students can analyze how researchers conduct experiments, interpret results and discuss the impact of the results. The simplest of these is simply that tissue cannot exist in a healthy, functional state at -196C! Certain coaching styles are more applicable for individual sports wrestling, track, and tennis than for team sports football, soccer, and basketball. Are other researchers citing this paper? This, presumably, would require a highly precise synthesis technique, and would thus favor either frozen synthesis or fully stabilized chemical synthesis. Merkle's paper simply fails to appreciate the fundamental problems of doing chemistry on stable molecules below Tg, and one is left with only wild speculations about how such a problem could even be approached in principle. Is the sample selection adequate? For more detailed information on how to answer these questions, see Labs 4 and 5 Wood, 2003.
In this method, we build the dynamic final structure through a series of dynamic intermediate states, much as an actual human brain is synthesized today by natural methods. What did I find out? Proponents of this view claim that peer review has repressed scientists from pursuing innovative research ideas and bold research questions that have the potential to make major advances and paradigm shifts in the field, as they believe that this work will likely be rejected by their peers upon review. Many students fail to complete this task, as they simply provide a summary of the analyzed paper, forgetting about personal approach and challenging your own skills and knowledge. If technology X involves building a frozen structure and then warming it, then banning structural changes that would allow the structure to better resist heating would be plain silly. A critique of your colleague's demonstration, in contrast, requires you to examine the arguments in the demonstration and show that they fail to establish the conclusion that the current legal counsel should be retained.
In: Dynamic Aspects of Structural Change in Liquids and Glasses C. These alternative forms of peer review are still un-established and experimental. A succint summary is provided in the first paragraph. The two formal products of this activity are separate sets of reviewer comments to the editor and the authors and these are described. Another reason, perhaps more important than the first, is that this format allows the paper to be read at several different levels. In addition, bringing coaches together to a common setting could have reduced location threat.
Pressure below the glass transition: a new way of making amorphous solids. Fahy's is better: build the frozen structure with an appropriate concentration of cryoprotectant and then heat it slowly. This form of criticism suffers because the critic's proposed solution to the perceived problem is in fact a proposal of the critic. Remember that the title becomes the basis for most on-line computer searches - if your title is insufficient, few people will find or read your paper. If you're already familiar with the paper's topic, you can just skim the introduction and materials and methods sections to make sure you're truly up-to-date.
There isn't any paper to remove. You're likely to find that reading and understanding a scientific paper is an iterative process: read, look things up, re-read, etc. There are guidelines on key content, as well as planning, preparing, and delivering an oral presentation. That's why you'll see some fairly complex explanations in this paper on the data analysis but no information on the literature review. In this case, blinding was successful 73% of the time, and they found that when author identity was masked, the quality of review was slightly higher. I try to be constructive by suggesting ways to improve the problematic aspects, if that is possible, and also try to hit a calm and friendly but also neutral and objective tone.
Rod logic will work quite nicely at liquid nitrogen temperature. What did we know about it before I did this study? The soundness of the entire peer-review process depends on the quality of the reviews that we write. You must relate your work to the findings of other studies - including previous studies you may have done and those of other investigators. Journals will then choose papers that they find relevant based on the peer reviews and publish those papers as a collection. There tends to be greater emphasis on your chosen comparative text than on your own creative writing project, with a clear thesis linking the two. Or are there gaps in the logic or assumptions being made? Low temperature synthesis continues to be a synthetic method with certain advantages e. Given the severe level of damage that might occur when significant pre-suspension injury has taken place, especially when this is compounded by a suspension performed under adverse or sub-optimal conditions, it seems most attractive to digitize the entire structure first rather than to attempt the direct physical repair of specific forms of damage using specific techniques.
This allows the reviewer to make independent decisions without the influence of the author. It's not the reviewer's job to copy edit the paper, so don't go out of your way to look for typos. Merkle's attempt to provide persuasive arguments for cryonics fails in a number of basic ways. It is your way of making the whole process of creating an article critique simple and fun, following all the common rules and regulations. If you have performed experiments at a particular location or lab because it is the only place to do it, or one of a few, then you should note that in your methods and identify the lab or facility. The claim that rapid heating of a biological structure from say 130 Kelvins to 340 Kelvins or so will inherently cause it to explode is without merit. Although he says that temperature of repair is left open, he clearly favors repair at temperatures below the glass transition temperature, e.
It seems unlikely that an entire brain can be disassembled and reassembled at liquid nitrogen temperature without requiring the performance of any chemistry at that temperature, even without considering the issue of molecular repairs. I usually sit on the review for a day and then reread it to be sure it is balanced and fair before deciding anything. Plan what these figures will be in your paper. If there is any section of the manuscript they feel they are not qualified to review, they should mention this in their comments and not provide further feedback on that section. For more detailed information on how to answer these questions, see Lab. Finally, the peer reviewer determines whether the paper is clearly written and if the content seems logical.
An enormous number of papers published 1. I solved it by making the decision to review one journal article per week, putting a slot in my calendar for it, and promptly declining subsequent requests after the weekly slot is filled—or offering the next available opening to the editor. I do this because editors might have a harder time landing reviewers for these papers too, and because people who aren't deeply connected into our research community also deserve quality feedback. Because the key words identify a specific behavior, a modifying agent, and the experimental organism. Scientific papers contain the most up-to-date information about a field.
Once you have your question, start reading the literature to gather evidence. However, nowadays most journals are available online, either exclusively or in addition to print, and many journals have very limited printing runs. This highlights the fact that peer review of more controversial or specialized work is typically performed by people who are interested and hold similar views or opinions as the author, which can cause bias in their review. Primary research articles contain the original data and conclusions of the researchers who were involved in the experiments. This shows a high level of understanding. On average, it takes approximately six hours to review one paper , however, this number may vary greatly depending on the content of the paper and the nature of the peer reviewer. The general structure of your critique should consist of a title page, abstract, body and references.