ࡱ> -/,s jbjb &kk ]VVVV8 $V$,=1&> VV(Bio 263, Molecular Ecology Fall 2002 HOW TO ANALYZE A SCIENTIFIC PAPER 1. Read through the abstract and/or introduction (and conclusions) once and attempt to write down the general biological question(s). 2. Read the methods and results of the paper carefully. Write complete sentences stating as concisely as you can the hypotheses the authors test. These may be very specific compared to the general theory, and sometimes they become clearer in the discussion/conclusions section. Do these hypotheses arise from predictions made by a particular model? If so, describe the model. You may find it helpful to reread the introduction. Note that what often looks like a question (or "getting information") can be restated in the form of a hypothesis. Where appropriate, list alternative hypotheses mentioned by the authors. 3. Study the methods and sketch an outline of the experimental design. What exactly is being observed or measured, and what outcome of these measurements (data) would support or reject the hypothesis? What are the units of observation? Do the sample sizes in the results make sense when compared to the descriptions in the methods? Are any important assumptions being invoked in the model and design that qualify the importance of the results? 4. What exactly are the results? Carefully examine graphs, tables, and figures for the information referred to in the text. Can you see any obvious technical constraints? Are sample sizes or number of replications sufficient or will you be skeptical about the results obtained? If appropriate, are the experimental data analyzed statistically? Were there any unexpected problems in the way the experiment worked so the design could not be followed exactly? How much confidence do you have in the results? (This is both a subjective question and an objective one. The objectivity is provided by appropriate experimental controls or by statistical analysis allowing for the calculation of the probability that chance alone was capable of giving a particular result.) 5. What are the authors' conclusions? Do the authors interpret their results in light of stated testable hypotheses? 6. Read the 'Discussion' and relate the results and conclusions the authors emphasize to your original statement about what interests us in these experiments as biologists. Do they have unanticipated findings? Are their results inconsistent with existing theory? Is there some serendipity involved in the importance of their findings? Does the interpretation of the results go beyond what the results actually indicate? Are the investigators overextending their analysis in order to bolster a view that they feel strongly about? %G dhiSJfw%*LM% * H   8 D f j koCJ5>*CJOJQJ5CJOJQJ CJOJQJ2%GH hiUVJKLM$%GH hiUVJKLM()*OPQR% & ' I J K L    = > ? @ A j mno]()*OPQR% & ' I J K K L    = > ? @ A j mno '0P/ =!8"8#8$%|HH(FG(HH(d'`@ [0@0NormalCJOJQJmH <A@<Default Paragraph FontDC`DBody Text Indent OJQJ,`,Header  ! &)&    K  X_ Computer Hardware ServicesK Firm where:COURSES:BIO 263 molecular ecology:how to read a paper - boiler@II,II @@GTimes New Roman5Symbol3 Arial9New York3Times" iii$+> D201.paperanalysis.97JSComputer Hardware Services Oh+'0  8 D P \hpx'201.paperanalysis.97 801.JS.S.NormaleComputer Hardware Services02mpMicrosoft Word 8.0e@@BU`@`@` ՜.+,D՜.+,L hp  ' Reed Collegena b 201.paperanalysis.97 Title 6> _PID_GUID'AN{9C9EC182-CBD9-11D6-89E0-0003931CE9E8}  !"#%&'()*+.Root Entry F*`01TableWordDocument&SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8$CompObjXObjectPool*`*` FMicrosoft Word DocumentNB6WWord.Document.8