2000 word without counting the references, its so important to follow the instructions in all the details it s a CRITICAL REVIEW OF A JOURNAL ARTICLE
ONPS1048 Assignment 2- Critical Review of a Journal Article.
This assignment is worth 20% of your assessment.
Due date: Friday September 21, midnight
Word count: 2000 words (+/- 10%)
Total word count, (not including references, tables and figures)
Assignment:
Choose one of the scientific journal articles from the list below and write a review of the article with the following sections:
1. Cover sheet- your name, the article you are reviewing, word count.
2. Summary and Background
3. Critical Review
Detailed instructions can be found below, or can be downloaded here.
List of Journal Articles:
Please choose ONE only of the articles below for your critical review:
Congestrì F, Morotti M, Vicari R, Pedna MF, Sparacino M, Torri A, et al. Comparison of the Novel Immunocatch Legionella Test with Sofia Legionella FIA Assay and with BinaxNOW Legionella Card Assay for Detection of Legionella pneumophila(Serogroup 1) Antigen in Urine Samples. Bourbeau P, editor. J Clin Microbiol. 2019 Aug;57(8):376–4.
2. Hinderfeld AS, Phukan N, Bär A-K, Roberton AM, Simoes-Barbosa A. Cooperative Interactions between Trichomonas vaginalisand Associated Bacteria Enhance Paracellular Permeability of the Cervicovaginal Epithelium by Dysregulating Tight Junctions. Herbert DR, editor. Infect Immun. 2019 Mar;87(5):4680–11.
3. Nair S, Patel V, Hickey T, Maguire C, Greig DR, Lee W, et al. Real-Time PCR Assay for Differentiation of Typhoidal and Nontyphoidal Salmonella. Ledeboer NA, editor. J Clin Microbiol. 2019 Aug;57(8):901–9.
4. Pinault L, Chabrière E, Raoult D, Fenollar F. Direct Identification of Pathogens in Urine by Use of a Specific Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization–Time of Flight Spectrum Database. Carroll KC, editor. J Clin Microbiol. 2019 Apr;57(4):269–9.
Submitting your Critical review assignment
• Please combine all parts of your assignment into one word processor (Word or Pages) or PDF document, and submit using the Turnitin link. Make sure you include a cover page with your name, student number, a word count, and the article you are reviewing.
Assignment Instructions
Critical Review of a Journal Article
Word count: 2000 + or – 200 words
1. Chose a journal article form the list provided, locate the article using the RMIT library and download the PDF and any supplementary material.
2. Read through the assignment instructions, and questions below that are used to assess scientific manuscripts.
3. Read the article you have chosen.
4. Write a review of the article with the following sections:
o Cover sheet- your name, the article you are reviewing, word count.
o Summary and Background
o Critical Review
General Requirements for assignment.
Reports in Microbiology are written in scientific format. The purpose of scientific writing is to inform the reader of the procedures and results of an experiment. The introduction section provides the background and context for the reader. The writing should be clear, logical and easy to understand. For this reason, scientific writing usually follows a defined format.
The report should be word-processed. Use font 12 or higher and double space the report. Include a computer word count and usually at least one table or figure with results should be included. Pages should be numbered. Please use the Vancouver Referencing style in your report. The easiest way to do this is to use referencing software (eg. Endnote).
Students can access Endnote software through the RMIT library. Please see: http://www1.rmit.edu.au/library.
Please ask for advice on installing and using Endnote at the library or IT. Endnote training sessions are run on a regular basis.
In a scientific report, it is important to write as clearly and precisely as possible. After writing the first draft, read the report and see if you can reduce the word count by using good precise scientific writing. The word limit for any report does not include tables, figures or reference list. This word limit is for the entire report, not for each individual section.
Students should use their word processing software to generate a word count and record the word count on the coversheet of your assignment.
Instructions for writing your critical review of a journal article.
Your critical review should be written in 2 sections:
1. Summary of background and contents of paper (50% of marks)
Write around 1-2 page on the background and contents of the paper, this should cover the background of the study so that you can put it in context and its importance in microbiology. Then write and a summary of what was done in the study and its outcomes.
You should write a short review of the background of the article to make its context in medical microbiology clear, this should include a short discussion of the other relevant published studies in the area. This is likely to include the studies referenced in the
article you are reading, but may also include other studies they don’t mention.
In the case of a very novel technique there may be few other published studies, in which case you should focus your discussion of the background of the paper on the problem that it is addressing and its significance.
The general questions you should be addressing in this section of your report are- Why was this study done? And briefly What has previously been reported that provides the basis or rationale for this study?
There may also have been studies published more recently so you will need to do your own literature search on the topic. For help doing this see: Searching for journal articles and How to download articles for the RMIT library.
Your summary of the work done in the paper should cover the introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion sections. You may either write a section under each of these sections or write an overall “summary” of the contents of the paper, provided all sections are mentioned in your report. Don’t forget to read and discuss any supplementary information that is linked to the paper.
As this paper is written primarily for microbiologists working in medical microbiology, there may be some sections that are not explained in the detail that you need for your own understanding. In that case, do some research of the scientific literature using a
database such as PubMed and fill in the gaps. Additional references used should be cited using the Vancouver referencing system.
2. Critical Review. (50% of marks)
The aim of this section is to show the examiner that you have understood the purpose, need for and content of the paper- particularly in relation to other published work in the field.
Present a critical review of the article. The following points will be helpful in the review:
It is not essential that you answer all of these questions (not all will be directly relevant to the article you have chosen), or even that you write your review in the order set out below, but you can use these points as a guide and check list.
The major focus of the critical review should be the findings of the study, or the experimental approach in relation to other published work in the field.
You can point out typographic and grammatical errors, or state whether you think some parts of the paper are too long, or difficult to understand, but do NOT devote a large part of your review to these issues.
Questions to consider when critically reviewing an article:
The following guidelines are modified from guidelines for reviewers of the European Journal of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (EJMID): Permission was obtained from the journal to reproduce this information.
General:
• How original is this paper? For example, is it simply applying the methods used in another study to a new situation or is the idea completely novel?
• Are there any published studies on the same topic?
• What is unique about this study?
• How important is this study to medical microbiology?
• Are there any sections of the paper that are too long and could be shortened?
• Is the writing clear, simple and concise?
Abstract
• Does the abstract outline the aims of the study, main methods, results and conclusions?
Introduction
• Does the introduction state the research question to be addressed?
• Is sufficient background information provided for readers to understand the question?
Materials and methods
• Are the methods appropriate to the research question/s being addressed?
• Are the methods described in sufficient detail to be repeated by another microbiologist? Is any important information missing?
• Have references been provided for all the methods, except new ones developed by the authors?
Results
• Are there any results in the text that would be better presented in a table or figure?
• Is there any material presented in a table or figure that would be better presented in the text? Is there any repetition of results in text AND a table or figure?
Discussion
• Do you agree with the author’s interpretation of results? And the significance of the study? (You are free to agree or disagree- you need to justify your statements with explanations and or reference to relevant scientific literature)
• Have the authors clearly distinguished between their own results and the results of others?
• Are there any negative findings in the results that could be important but have not been discussed?
• Have the authors adequately discussed their results and conclusions in relation to the results of other investigators? ie. other publications on this topic
• Are the author’s conclusions acceptable and is there sufficient evidence for the
conclusions they have drawn?
• Do the findings of the study agree with, or contradict other studies? Has this been discussed?
• Are there any relevant studies on this topic that have not been referred to or discussed by the authors?
References
• Check that all statements in the text that require a reference are properly referenced.
Tables and figures
• Do all tables and figures have complete legends so that they can be understood without reference to the text?
• Could any of the tables and figures be omitted or simplified?
Ethics and Conflicts of interest:
If relevant- Were all studies approved by the relevant animal or human ethics committees?
Do you think there could be any conflict of interest regarding the results of the study? Are any conflicts declared? Are there commercial interests in the study?
The general breakdown of marks for parts of you report are shown in the table below. The detailed marking rubric with for the assignment, with detailed marking criteria is large. It can be best viewed by viewing the PDF version attached below.
Students are advised to review the detailed rubric when preparing their assignment for submission.
Marking scheme.
Criterion Possible Marks
Summary -Background & content
Evidence of understanding of background of subject area
Is there evidence that the background has been researched further?
5
Has the study been clearly summarised and the important outcomes stated? 5
Critical review
Have the key outcomes of the study been addressed? Have the strengths and weaknesses been addressed?
Is there adequate reference to the scientific literature? Have other relevant published studies been discussed?
5
Are critical statements (positive of negative?) backed up by evidence from the paper, or the scientific literature?
Evidence of understanding of the implications of the study for clinical microbiology practice
5
Referencing
present, correct style, use of relevant literature
4
Writing
clarity, spelling, grammar. Use of appropriate scientific language Turnitin score, word count, cover sheet with required information.
6
Total (out of 30 marks) 30
GET ANSWERS / LIVE CHAT