Primary literature full papers A complete description of current research

Primary literature full papers a complete description

This preview shows page 7 - 10 out of 33 pages.

Primary literature - full papers A complete description of current research findings Full publication with all the recipes and details - notes A short description of current research findings that are considered less urgent/important Short full papers - commutations A short description of important and/ or urgent current research findings Like the paper published by Watson&Crick Doesn’t take long to reviewed in the peer-review process
Image of page 7
Video 4a Peer review (detail of process) 1. Research conducted by researcher 2. Sublimed to the editor 3. Contend with one or more referees (usually 2,3 or 4) - respond in a few days, usually takes around a moth 4. Sent back to Editor - Analyze referee’s responses 5. Sent back to researcher - rebuttal or correction must be made 6. Sent back to Editor - decision may be made by editor - or it may be sent back to Referee on last time 7. Final decision made - not a good idea for a researcher to submit same paper to several journals (referees may figure it out and it’s not a good sign for the researcher) - Referee and researcher do to know/ communicate with each other Video 4b Names on publications - In geology, name goes first is the primary author (also in medicine) - In chemistry, last author is the main author - An asterisk is applied to the senior author All in all, there is no simple formula for the names of authors for the di ff erent scientific disciplines Any order and( nearly any number) of author are possible Video 5 -the vast majority of scientific papers that are published are honest e ff orts report the facts Papers in food science - largely believed that skipping breakfast will cause you to gain weight - turns out skipping will not cause you to gain weight - Calories counting - calories counting cannot be standardized - media can distort the actual results via headlines Video 6 Method reproducibility- Results reproducibility- Robustness and generalization
Image of page 8
Scientific misconduct - making a mistake vs intent to deceive - 0.3-4.9% scientist admit to misconduct - 5.2 -33.3% witnessed a colleague commit misconduct - Most scientific journals have not retracted papers - The reason behind half of the retraction is errors and lack of reproducibility - USA and China have the most retractions…and the most publications - 4 out of 10000 papers are retracted -1.8-1.9 million scientific research papers are published per year Video 7 Studies - Observational (epidemiological)studies : studies where the assignment of subject is not controlled by the investigator Case control studies: compare ppl with a specific condition(case) to other ppl who are otherwise similar except for that condition (control) - Retrospective studies: to go back (revisit the past) Cohort study: study of a group of ppl over a long period of time to determine which factors might be associated with the appearance of a specific condition - prospective study: to go ahead (present/future) , it’s stronger in term of validity - e.g, EPIC (European perspective investigation into Cancer) STUDY: involve 520000 ppl in
Image of page 9
Image of page 10

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 33 pages?

  • Spring '11
  • Multiple
  • Nutrition, researcher, Vitamin

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture