Critique for Paper Analysis (Results (Have they clearly and systematically…
Critique for Paper Analysis
Condense the findings into two or three sentences
Condense discussion/conclusion into two or three sentences
What were the aims?
Have the aims been clearly defined?
Have they clearly explained why this study is important?
Have they provided evidence of experiments done so far?
Have they explained what the things are they will be looking at? i.e. is it clear what things are, hormones etc.
Give enough information to reproduce experiment?
Are the methods processes that will explore their aims effectively? i.e. if looking at receptor location are they conducting thorough IHCs?
Have they used adequate controls? Could they used more?
How big is the sample size?
Was there something else they could have looked at to answer the study question?
have they used appropriate animal models?
Have they clearly and systematically presented the results from each experiment?
Have they conducted stringent statistical tests to understand the significance of their results?
Do results make sense? i.e. have they clearly explained what the results are?
Have they made clear what they think are their most significant results?
Do I agree that these results are most interesting?
Do they interpret their results in a logical way?
Does the paper mention all aspects?
Does the paper address each of their aims?
have they made clear their main findings?
Have they presented enough evidence for their opinion?
Have they clearly discussed the results by comparing their results with other paper findings?
Are figures clearly and sensibly laid out?
Do figure legends fully explain what the images/graphs/tables are showing?
Are p-values clearly stated and significance level mentioned?
Could figures be presented alternatively? i.e. if its a table, could data have been presented in graphs?
Do graphs have appropriate error bars/annotations to highlight important areas?
If images, are scale bars, magnification levels and appropriate controls shown and compared?
Are there any "data not shown" aspects?
Does there seem bias?
Is there a conflict of interest for the author?
Was the paper well written, clear and concise?
Is there a clear hypothesis?
Are the aims clear?