Perhaps a criterion concerning critical evaluation of the paper should be added too? e.g. -- thoroughly discusses implications and applications (where applicable) -- evaluates methods of data presentation -- notes any holes in explanation e.g. details that were `glossed over', etc.
I wouldn't object to having that included. My only argument for using it in its current form is that I can send Seth the existing PDF (with course code change) and he can print off 25 copies. If we extent the criteria then someone has to write up a new one and I don't have the time to do it this week.
I'm happy with the addition of the 3rd criteria provided that some leniency is afforded on the "ethical awareness" criteria in cases where only a tenuous link to ethics can be made. I'm not sure anyone is going to appreciate a discussion on the ethics of protein folding for example.
Ahhh, but do I mean ethics in the 'cutting off heads' kind of way, or in the sense of accurate reporting of data, previous work, acknowledgements, etc?
I agree with James' criteria; they seem to be a good benchmark for a cohesive review. Of course, since no-one has the papers that were reviewed, we cannot check the content part very comprehensively. I trust everyone here, though... :). Josh H
Perhaps a criterion concerning critical evaluation of the paper should be added too?
ReplyDeletee.g. -- thoroughly discusses implications and applications (where applicable) -- evaluates methods of data presentation -- notes any holes in explanation e.g. details that were `glossed over', etc.
I wouldn't object to having that included. My only argument for using it in its current form is that I can send Seth the existing PDF (with course code change) and he can print off 25 copies. If we extent the criteria then someone has to write up a new one and I don't have the time to do it this week.
ReplyDeleteIf I count correctly, Martin, that's one post AND one comment past your avowed twenty.
ReplyDeleteGuilty as charged...
ReplyDeleteMy proposed criteria; Martin, reply at your peril...
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B0jAjeoYTJ4rNmViY2ZiZDQtZGQ4OS00MmI0LTlhN2YtOWJkMmZlOTc2NjI2&hl=en_GB
I'm happy with the addition of the 3rd criteria provided that some leniency is afforded on the "ethical awareness" criteria in cases where only a tenuous link to ethics can be made. I'm not sure anyone is going to appreciate a discussion on the ethics of protein folding for example.
ReplyDeleteAhhh, but do I mean ethics in the 'cutting off heads' kind of way, or in the sense of accurate reporting of data, previous work, acknowledgements, etc?
ReplyDeleteI agree with James' criteria; they seem to be a good benchmark for a cohesive review. Of course, since no-one has the papers that were reviewed, we cannot check the content part very comprehensively. I trust everyone here, though... :).
ReplyDeleteJosh H