Prepare a journal club presentation in the format explained below a. Make slides: maximum 10 to 11 slides b. Slide 1: Title of the paper, authors and affiliations c. Slide 2: outline the background story i. How did you come across this paper? ii. What information does the audience need to understand the stidy? ili. Why is the study important? iv. Use language that everybody understands d. Slide 3: State the aims and major questions of the paper e. Slide 4-7: Explain the results of the paper including the methods used i. Use the figures of the paper to explain the results 1. Split the figures up into smaller parts, if they are too complicated 2. You don't have to present all figures of the paper, just the main ones ii. The title of the slide should be the finding presented in the figure ili. Keep it simple so that everybody understands, maybe include a basic illustration iv. Always explain clearly the experiment/measurement, that was done to produce the figure. This might include explaining the statistics! v. If you show tables, keep it simple! Use eg. colour to show the important columns, only show the important part of very large tables, round numbers to make the table easier to read f. Slide 8 (and maybe 9): Summarize the conclusion of the paper and put results into context of the larger field i. were the aims/questions achieved/answered? ii. Which conclusions were drawn directly from the experiments performed? Which were more speculative? iii. Do all of the conclusions make sense based on the results? iv. Has this article supported the generally accepted thinking on this topic or refuted it? v. How has this article furthered thinking in the field? g. Slide 10: comment on the validity of the methods, results and conclusion; are there any weaknesses? What are the strengths of the paper? i. Give the authors credit for elegant experiments or a thorough analysis ii. Peer review usually wees out "bad science" but it may still exist. Look out for: 1. Sensationalist headlines 2. Misinterpreted results 3. Conflicts of interest 4. Correlation conflated with causation 5. Speculative language 6. Too small sample sizes (lack of power; is there a power analysis?) 7. Inappropriate statistical analysis 8. No control group or inappropriate control group 9. Cherry-picked results 10. Unreplicated results ili. Are all of the results obtained consistent with the hypothesis (if not, that does not have to be a bad thing but needs to be explained) iv. Are there major outliers? v. What case of evidence would make the authors point stronger or weaker? vi. What case would a skeptical scientist make against the authors' interpretation of their results?
Prepare a journal club presentation in the format explained below
a. Make slides: maximum 10 to 11 slides
b. Slide 1: Title of the paper, authors and affiliations
c. Slide 2: outline the background story
i. How did you come across this paper?
ii. What information does the audience need to understand the stidy? ili. Why is the study important? iv. Use language that everybody understands
d. Slide 3: State the aims and major questions of the paper
e. Slide 4-7: Explain the results of the paper including the methods used
i. Use the figures of the paper to explain the results
1. Split the figures up into smaller parts, if they are too complicated
2. You don't have to present all figures of the paper, just the main ones ii. The title of the slide should be the finding presented in the figure ili. Keep it simple so that everybody understands, maybe include a basic illustration
iv. Always explain clearly the experiment/measurement, that was done to produce the figure. This might include explaining the statistics!
v. If you show tables, keep it simple! Use eg. colour to show the important columns, only show the important part of very large tables, round numbers to make the table easier to read
f. Slide 8 (and maybe 9): Summarize the conclusion of the paper and put results into context of the larger field
i. were the aims/questions achieved/answered?
ii. Which conclusions were drawn directly from the experiments performed? Which were more speculative? iii. Do all of the conclusions make sense based on the results?
iv. Has this article supported the generally accepted thinking on this topic or refuted it?
v. How has this article furthered thinking in the field?
g. Slide 10: comment on the validity of the methods, results and conclusion; are there any weaknesses? What are the strengths of the paper?
i. Give the authors credit for elegant experiments or a thorough analysis ii. Peer review usually wees out "bad science" but it may still exist. Look out for:
1. Sensationalist headlines
2. Misinterpreted results
3. Conflicts of interest
4. Correlation conflated with causation
5. Speculative language
6. Too small sample sizes (lack of power; is there a power analysis?)
7. Inappropriate statistical analysis
8. No control group or inappropriate control group
9. Cherry-picked results
10. Unreplicated results
ili. Are all of the results obtained consistent with the hypothesis (if not, that does not have to be a bad thing but needs to be explained) iv. Are there major outliers?
v. What case of evidence would make the authors point stronger or weaker? vi. What case would a skeptical scientist make against the authors' interpretation of their results?
Created using ChatSlide
Diese Präsentation behandelt die metabolische Relevanz von Essenszeitpunkten und deren Einfluss auf die Essensmotivation. Sie umfasst das Versuchsdesign zur Messung der Essensmotivation, die Erklärung der Ortspräferenz nach Futterkonditionierung sowie die Auswirkungen von Chow und Snacks zu verschiedenen Zeiten. Abschließend wird die Verbindung zwischen der inneren Uhr und Belohnungsessen diskutiert, wobei die Ergebnisse auf eine erhöhte Snackvulnerabilität in Ruhephasen hinweisen.