Reviewer discusses implications, and author interpretations of data while notin
Rubric: 490 Article Reviews
|
Reviewer adheres to page limit: Review is < 1.5 pgs, w/ 1.5 spacing, 11 pt font, 1” margins |
Reviews violating these criteria may not be accepted |
|
Reviewer includes identifying information: Student name at the top, right of the review |
|
|
Heading at top of review = Review of Authors. Year. Paper title |
|
|
Knowledge The reviewer demonstrates they reasonably understood the article and the background; i.e., there are no/few major mistakes in reviewer’s interpretations, criticisms, conclusions |
/35 |
|
Analytical reasoning, critical thinking, content 1. The reviewer applies knowledge from prior BIO courses and from background literature to evaluate project/experiment design, evaluate author’s interpretations of data and conclusions, identify missing experiments, identify holes in authors’ logic, suggest appropriate future research (next logical steps), etc. 2. Author includes the content items listed below in the “Content Outline for Reviews” |
/35 |
|
Style: 1. Reviewer avoids use of 1st, 2nd person 2. Writing is clear, concise** 3. Sentences are complete 4. Paragraphs are composed of related sentences |
/20 |
|
Citations: 1. In the review, the supporting article(s) is (are) cited using name, date format (e.g., Smith, 1999, Smith and Jones, 2000, or Smith et al., 2001). 2. At the end of the review, the full citation for supporting literature is provided. 3. The full citation(s) is/are provided in a standard journal citation format, that includes authors, title of the supporting article, the journal name, year, volume, issue and pages; full citation is not provided as a link/reference to a website. |
/10 |
Content Outline for Reviews
1st paragraph:
1. Summarizes background and goals/hypotheses/predictions
2. Reviewer states whether the article was descriptive or hypothesis driven
Middle paragraphs:
1. Do not include a paragraph devoted to methods
2. Summarize key results, perhaps mentioning how they were obtained
3. Since this is a review, not a primary research article, reviewer discusses implications, and author interpretations of data while noting key results.
4. Discussion in these paragraphs includes reviewer’s evaluation of the data and of original author’s interpretation, perhaps experiment by experiment (figure by figure).
a. Evaluation relies not only on training in BIO, but also on at least one other piece of primary literature, or a refereed review article
b. At least some criticisms are more substantive than noting small sample size, poor writing style, or ugly figures
Final paragraph
1. Briefly summarizes main point/conclusions of the original article (1- 2 sentences)
2. Summarizes evaluation; points out key strengths/weaknesses (e.g., were there key experiments missing, do the authors conclusions match the data, etc.)
Radical change- temporal patterns of oxidative stress during social ascent in a dominance hierarchy
Click here for further assistance on this assignment
