intestinal response to nutrient sensing Credits at Degree Level

FIND A SOLUTION AT Academic Writers Bay

Report Critique (30%)
Report Critique Topic: γδ T cells regulate the intestinal response to nutrient sensing
Link of the article: Access this because, this is the topic for the report critique article
Zuri A. Sullivan, William Khoury-Hanold, Jaechul Lim, Chris Smillie, Moshe Biton, Bernardo S. Reis, Rachel K. Zwick, Scott D. Pope, Kavita Israni-Winger, Roham Parsa, Naomi H. Philip, Saleh Rashed, Noah Palm, Andrew Wang, Daniel Mucida, Aviv Regev, Ruslan Medzhitov
Science 19 Mar 2021: Vol. 371, Issue 6535
Weight
30%
Font
12 font size
Due
8th May 2021 at 11:59pm
Format
A critique can be a very useful exercise in learning how to develop protocols/procedures and gaining an understanding of the process of designing and undertaking a project, as well as interpret and write up project outcomes. There are numerous ways to approach this Report (Critique) assessment task. You must however include in your answer some background on the significance of the field in which the author is working and a summary of the paper. This must all be done in your own words. After this, the critiquing aspect of the paper can include but not be limited to, considering some of the following questions:
A critique starts with a brief summary of what the author(s) said and then looks at it critically. To summarize an article, you should first read the whole article and related references. What are the author’s main points? How does s/he/they back them up; that is, what evidence do/es the author(s) cite to support them? How could you make the same argument in your own words? At this point you should reread the article to make certain you summarized the author’s ideas correctly and that you clearly identified the source of each idea (whether it’s a direct quote or not). It is important to review related discipline areas and identify conflicting data/results and possible alternative scientific interpretation(s).
The next step is to critically review what the author(s) wrote: is the scientific argument logical and coherent? Were the methods used to gather the evidence appropriate for the author’s purposes? Does the evidence cited lead to the conclusion the author reached? Do you know of other evidence that might be used to make a counterargument? Be sure to check the date of the article and the evidence – are the conclusions still valid? You should also consider the author(s): Who is/are this/these person/people? What education or experience does the author(s) have in this field? Is(are) the author(s) simply an experienced writer in many fields or does the author(s) have real expertise? How do you know? (You will need to research the author(s). The format of scientific journals and their content varies, depending on the target audience. Most journal articles are reviewed by peers and there may be editorial decisions made to alter the work. It is important to review the ’scope and intent’ of the journal as well as the instructions to authors
Length
2,000 words
Curriculum Mode
Report
RATIONALE:
This Report is a Critique, which are essays based on a peer reviewed scientific paper. They are an individual’s critical appraisal, of a paper/article, based on scientific evidence. As such, each person will have a unique perspective on an article. There are lots of critiques available in the scientific literature especially in high profile scientific publications with a broad readership base where the significance of a paper may not be immediately clear to the general audience. For instance, the reporting of a new organic chemistry reaction or synthetic step may not seem important to biologists however once explained and put in context, the reaction could be a significant breakthrough for drug synthesis. It may take a critique to identify the limitations or the questions not answered as a result of the paper. This is especially important when the reader is not an expert in the field, but may want to educate or apply the knowledge across scientific field boundaries. You will be assessed on the following: Reading, comprehending and understanding journal articles which require integration and interpretation of concepts. Combining information from many sources and synthesising this into a logical and encompassing argument. The Critique should be in 12point font and no more than 2000 words (not including references, figure legends and diagrams). Referencing style should be consistent with the Vancouver style of referencing (with superscript numbering).
RESOURCES:
For some examples of critiques have a look at the ”Perspectives”section of the journal Science. These are critiques of articles appearing in the scientific literature. The article Ohlsson, R. (2008) Widespread monoallelic expression, Science, 318, 1077-1078 critiques the article Gimelbrant et al., (2007) Widespread monoallelic expression on human autosomes, Science 318, 1136-1140. Looking at this critique you will find that the author gives a background to the subject area and why the subject area is significant, summarises the outcome of the article and describes how this is an extension of knowledge. The author points out aspects of the results that were not commented on. He discusses areas that are not clear in the paper and speculates on some aspects backed up with some scientific evidence. Questions now needed to be answered are also posed. Have a look at some other examples of critiques and see how they differ to this one.
Guiding Questions:
1. Is the hypothesis clearly stated, and does it relate to the question? For example, ”My study compared feeders at two heights to measure the effect of feeder height on the number of birds visiting the feeder.”(The ”question” in this case would be, ”What is the effect of feeder height on the number of birds visiting a feeder?”)
2. Does the introduction give relevant background information that helps you understand what was studied, and why?
3. Is the procedure (method) clearly stated so that the study could be repeated?
4. Did the investigators compare like (analogous) units? For example, studying the effect of feeder height by using similar feeders (e.g. platform feeders) at both heights, rather than a platform feeder down low and a tube feeder at the higher.
5. Are all the variables (independent, dependent) clearly defined? For example, the ”number of birds”, refers to average group size, maximum group size, or number of feeder visits. Each of these three can be a valid measurement, depending on the question you are trying to answer, but it is important to identify which variable you are looking
6. Are all graphs and tables labelled correctly, and do they clearly explain the results? Is each graph labelled with the time frame, the location, and the units of measurement for both the x- and y-axes?
7. Does the data relate to the hypothesis/question? Did they collect data on all relevant variables to answer their question? What variables might you substitute or add if you were doing the study?
8. Were the results explained? Do the results support or refute the question or hypothesis? Did the authors consider any alternative hypotheses? Do you notice a pattern in their results (graphs) that they don’t address in the paper?
9. Do you or other investigators agree with the conclusions? What would you or other investigators add or say differently? Did the author discuss the conclusions in light of other research? Do they cite these references?
10. Did they address any problems in their research, exploring how they might do things differently next time? Do they consider what future research might be done to further answer the question?
11. What is the significance of the research outcomes and are they explicit in the article?
MARKING CRITERIA:
Criteria

READ ALSO...   Hi, need to submit a 1250 words paper on the topic Electronic Commerce. It is evidently clear from the discussion that the dawn of the World Wide Web has led to many innovations. one of them is on the | StudyDaddy.com - Original paper

Evidence (10%)
Perceptive application to the topic enlarging on key aspects. Demonstrates perceptive use of e-journals with the use of insightful knowledge and original examples.
Format (10%)
Clear to the point. Logically sequenced with insightful explanations and concise transitions from point to point. Perceptive coverage of the whole topic. Seamless and insightful discussion while still enabling equitable contributions.
Analysis (10%)
Scientific argument insightful, logically and succinctly developed. Enhanced, professional with the use of original ideas, illustrations and/or figures, graphics that broaden understanding of the topic. Correct citing of all sources and direct quotes. Spelling and grammar correct

READ ALSO...   Design Work Order Invention and innovation contest Myocardial Infarction Inventory “Architecture Profile 24” Employment duties F...
Order from Academic Writers Bay
Best Custom Essay Writing Services

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPERNO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER