Critiquing a scientific research paper

Qualitative critique requires deep understanding of the topic as well as knowledge regarding various methods of research and analysis to get the best results. As someone who works in the security industry for ten years, I find this argument quite compelling and worth listening to. He also stated that the weakest link in any infrastructure can put the company at high risk of being disrupted which has been validated with the headlines being read nowadays of companies suffering from data breaches.

Critiquing a scientific research paper

Neuroscience and psychology news and views. It was aimed at an audience of clinical psychologists but should be of interest more widely. So, in this post, I want to tackle some of these before going on to suggest how we can critique diagnosis more effectively. Actually there are very few DSM diagnoses for which biological tests are entirely irrelevant.

Most use medical tests for differential diagnosis excluding other causessome DSM diagnoses require them as one of a number of criteria, and a handful are entirely based on biological tests.

Critiquing a scientific research paper

You can see this for yourself if you take the radical scientific step of opening the DSM-5 and reading what it actually says. There are some DSM diagnoses the minority for which biological tests are entirely irrelevant. Body dysmorphic disorder pfor example, a diagnosis that describes where people become overwhelmed with the idea that a part of their body is misshapen or unattractive, is purely based on reported experiences and behaviour.

Critiquing a scientific research paper other criteria are required or relevant. For most common DSM diagnoses, biological tests are relevant but for the purpose of excluding other causes. For example, in many DSM diagnoses there is a general exclusion that the symptoms must be not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance or another medical condition this appears in schizophreniaOCDgeneralized anxiety disorder and many many others.

On occasion, very specific biological tests are mentioned. For example, to make a confident diagnosis of panic disorder pthe DSM-5 recommends testing serum calcium levels to exclude hyperparathyroidism — which can produce similar symptoms.

The DSM diagnosis of narcolepsy p is one example, which has two such criteria: Several other diagnoses work along these lines — where a biomedical tests results are listed but are not necessary to make the diagnosis: There are also a range of DSM diagnoses that are not solely based on biomedical tests but for which positive test results are necessary for the diagnosis.

Anorexia nervosa p is the most obvious, which requires the person to have a BMI of less than 17, but this applies to various sleep disorders e. REM sleep disorder which requires a positive polysomnography or actigraphy finding and some disorders due to other medical conditions.

For example, neurocognitive disorder due to prion disease p requires a brain scan or blood test. There are some DSM diagnoses which are based exclusively on biological test results. These are a number of sleep disorders obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea, central sleep apnea and sleep-related hypoventilation, all diagnosed with polysomnography.

Here is a common criterion in many DSM diagnoses: Note however, that it is one or the other. However, there are a whole range of DSM diagnoses for which distress plays no part in making the diagnosis.

Here is a non-exhaustive list: There are many more. Do all psychiatric diagnoses? A score above 0. The results are atrocious. However, here are the results from a study that tested diagnostic agreement on a range of DSM-5 diagnoses when psychiatrists used a structured interview assessment.

Suddenly they are much better and are all within the acceptable to excellent range. This is well-known in mental health and medicine as a whole. If you want consistency, you have to use a structured assessment method. This is a myth based on ignorance about how medical diagnoses are made — almost all involve human judgement.

Just look at the between-doctor agreement results for some diagnoses in the rest of medicine which include the use of biomedical tests: Diagnosis of infection at the site of surgery 0.

There are many more examples in the medical literature which you can see for yourself. These committees shift the boundaries, revise, reject and resurrect diagnoses across medicine. The European Society of Cardiology revise the diagnostic criteria for heart failure and related problems on a yearly basis.

The International League Against Epilepsy revise their diagnoses of different epilepsies frequently — they just published their revised manual earlier this year. In they broadened the diagnostic criteria for epilepsy meaning more people are now classified as having epilepsy.

Humans are not cut-and-dry.

PSYCHOLOGY - TACOMA Overview[ edit ] In the scientific methodan experiment is an empirical procedure that arbitrates competing models or hypotheses.

Neither are most illnesses, diseases and injuries, and decisions about what a particular diagnosis should include is always a trade-off between measurement accuracy, suffering, outcome, and the potential benefits of intervention. This gets revised by a committee who examine the best evidence and come to a consensus on what should count as a medically-relevant problem.anarchism and other essays summary of the great essay film gallipoli italy attention getting devices for essays au cirque maurice careme illustration essay chopin.

Critiquing a scientific research paper

This seminar provides an opportunity for incoming students to orient themselves to the PhD program. The seminar is organized as a series of informal presentations and discussions, where participants have an opportunity to ask other doctoral students and faculty about their research.

Photos from inside USDA Agricultural Research Service laboratory, courtesy of White Coat Waste Project. This article explores certain concepts relating to critiquing research papers. These include considering the peer review process for publication, demonstrating the need for critiquing, providing a way to carefully evaluate research papers and exploring the role of impact factors.

This course provides instruction and practice in writing a well-structured, logical, and effective academic essay. Students will engage with the instructor, classmates, course materials, and additional resources to develop research, writing, revision, and editing processes.

The first part, "Researching the Critique," outlines the steps involved in selecting and evaluating a research article. The second part, "Writing your Critique," .

Why publish science in peer-reviewed journals? « Genomes Unzipped