Once again, very student oriented and perhaps not too techy, but important nonetheless and a very important points for science educators. If the below points are what scientists are looking for should we not be stressing them? I do. I’m not gonna link my rubric to prove it because I think most science teachers would say they do it. It is a good reminder though. Lets not loose sight of where we want them to get:

I generally agree with most of what he says, but I would raise one quibble about his list of criteria: What scientists are looking for when we evaluate a paper is whether the paper clearly addresses 3 points:
1) What is the question or issue being studied in this work?
2) What are the methods being used, and are they described in a sufficiently detailed manner so that somebody else can replicate the work? (Remember that replication is the real gold standard of scientific knowledge. Until we have independent replication of a result, it’s suspect. Hell, even after independent replication we’re still skeptical.)
3) Does the data presented support the conclusions that the author is drawing?

I think this leaves out one important question:

1.5) Is the result interesting?

Uncertain Principles: Inside Peer Review

Blogged with Flock

Advertisements