Suggestions for better papers
• What the judges look for in a paper
• Why judges reject papers
Suggestions for better papers
What the judges look for in a paper:
1.Objectives that are clearly stated in the
introduction
2. Concise methods that are logical and
free from jargon
3.Results that relate to the objectives
4.Conclusions that are justified by the
results
Organization
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction
Materials and methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Introduction
•
•
•
•
Include some background
State your objectives
Explain why the research is important
If your research is similar to something
published, explain how your work is different
• We often reject papers that are “copies” of
published work
Materials and Methods
• Should be a logical description of
what you did
• Make sure that a lay person would
understand your methods
• Explain how your methods will allow
you to meet your objectives
• Do not list materials used in your
project
Results
• The most important section of your
paper (and your presentation)
• Should be easy to interpret by all
judges
• Emphasize the important points of
your results (don’t make us guess)
Results: Figures
• Usually better than tables
• Make sure that figures can stand
alone
• Make sure that the figures clearly
indicate something important
• Each figure should be referenced in
the text of your results
Discussion and Conclusion
• Should relate to the objectives stated
in the introduction
• Should be clearly tied to your results
and should not go beyond your data
Why judges reject papers
• Literature searches
• Work that is a repeat of something
published and does not expand
beyond the original work
• Poor study design
• If we cannot interpret your results
• If we do not understand what the
figures are supposed to indicate
Problems in Study Design
• Sample size insufficient to indicate a
trend
• Samples insufficiently distributed on
the x-axis
• Samples should usually be randomly
drawn and independent of one
another
Not enough data to indicate a trend
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
10
15
20
25
Sample insufficiently distributed on
the x-axis
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
r2=0.78, F1,4=6.07, P=0.032
10
15
20
25
Balanced Linear Regression
x_axisP=0.000
r2=0.89,y_axis
F1,38vs
=389,
12.0
y_axis
9.0
6.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
5.0
x_axis
7.5
10.0
Sample insufficient across the x-axis
vs x_axis
r2=0.01, y_axis
F1,38=.07,
P=0.841
8.5
y_axis
7.5
6.5
5.5
4.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
x_axis
7.5
8.0
Independent Samples?
When are non-independent samples are
OK?
• Multiple measurements on an individual to
track a response
• Before and after measurements on subjects
• Can be dealt with statistically (repeated
measures ANOVA or paired t-tests)
Statistical outliers
•
•
•
•
What do we do with outliers?
Do nothing when you can’t justify deleting
In regression, conduct “robust regression”
Delete if you can justify
Examples from previous speakers
• To illustrate some common problems
18
Average Nerve Count
16
14
12
Control
10
Pre-Diabetic
8
Diabetic
6
4
2
0
Control
Pre-Diabetic
Diabetic
Figure 1 Density of Epidermal Nerve Fibers (# nerve branches per Millimeter of epidermal border
length + Standard Error)
18
Average Nerve Count
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Control
Pre-Diabetic
Diabetic
Figure 1 Density of Epidermal Nerve Fibers (# nerve branches per
Millimeter of epidermal border length + Standard Error)
Rule 2: Avoid Jargon and be
careful with abbreviations
DIFFERENTIALLY EXPRESSED GENES IDENTIFIED BY SAM
Positive Differentially
Expressed Genes, 173
Negative Differentially
Expressed Genes, 11
Non- Significant Genes,
6647
Positive Differentially Expressed Genes
Negative Differentially Expressed Genes
Non- Significant Genes
(pos 173) (neg 11)
(neu. 6647)
17.5
2.5
Total Polyphenol
Radical Scavenging Activity
Total polyphenol
(g/100g dry weight)
2
12.5
1.5
10
7.5
1
5
0.5
Radical Scavenging activity
(m mole Trolox/mg dry weight)
15
2.5
0
0
1
Low PP
High polyphenol
Medium
4 7 10 13 16 19 22
25 28polyphenol
31 34 37 accumulator
40 43 46 49 52
55pp58
Low
accumulators
accumulators
accumulators
Genotypes
Radical scavenging activity (µ mole Trolox/mg dry leaf powder) and total
polyphenol (g/100 g dry leaf powder) in the leaves of 60 sweetpotato genotypes
2.3
y = 0.1303x - 0.2843
r = 0.85 (n= 30)
RSA
1.9
1.5
1.1
0.7
0.3
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
Total Polyphenol
Linear correlations between the total polyphenol contents
(g/100g dry matter) and radical scavenging activities (RSA;
mmol Trolox/g DM) of sweet potato leaves
A
C
B
D
Photomicrographs A and B show crystals produced by 500 µM melamine and
500 µM cyanuric acid in H20 (sample 11), at 400X magnification and 40X
magnification, respectively. Photomicrographs C and D show crystals
produced by 500 µM melamine and 500 µM cyanuric acid in artificial urine
(Sample 6), at 400X magnification and 40X magnification, respectively.
Pellet weights for Trial 3 samples
Trial #3
Samples
Solution Weight (in
grams)
Visible Pellet
Pellet Weight (in
grams)
1
0.8460
No
n/d
2
0.6832
No
n/d
3
1.0030
No
0.0021
4
0.9370
No
0.0033
5
1.0130
No
0.0029
6
0.8990
Yes
0.0136
7
0.9972
No
0.0100
8
0.8131
No
0.0001
9
0.7569
No
0.0055
10
1.0275
No
0.0010
11
1.0025
Yes
0.0016
•