【附件3】文献解读问卷.doc

Reading club – preliminary evaluation name of reader _____________________________ Date: __________________ I. Basic information paper title/journal: key authors: where and when the work was done: key claim(s) of this study? It may be useful to differentiate between major and minor claims. broader significance of the work if the claims are true? II. Factual information brief description of what were done (rather than what was said) experimentally and/or computationally brief description of the key factual findings presented; these are usually in terms of figures, and tables; some times the crucial information is contained in “Supplementary Materials”. brief description of prior knowledge in the literature central to the study (if applicable) anything unclear about methodology used? This should be clarified during the reading club before discussing the paper further. III. Critique of the factual part of the study do you see any potential pitfalls in what were done in the experiments and/or data analysis (e.g., in terms of procedure, instrumentation, measurements)? do you see any problems in links made to existing literature (e.g., invoking literature result outside of its regime of applicability)? do you see any possible problem with the findings themselves regardless of how they were obtained (e.g., parameters outside of the common range, inconsistency among the results)? In studies involving computational modeling, how were the parameters obtained? In what ways to the findings depend on the parameters? IV. Interpretation of the factual findings how did the authors interpret each major finding? what assumptions are made in each case? Did they discuss/rule out alternative interpretations? for which major findings can you provide additional alternative interpretation? what would you do to distinguish between the different interpretations. V. From findings/interpretations to claims what overall strategy or argument did the authors use to relate the factual findings/interpretations to their claims? can you detect any logical flaws in the strategy or argument? if you find a major flaw, what alternative strategy would you use? if not, then identify the one or two pieces of findings that the strategy relies the most on. Go back to look at those pieces of findings again, together with the interpretation. Are you satisfied with the authors handling/presentation of those central findings? what additional measurements/calculations would you want to get to make the interpretations and arguments more credible? preliminary overall assessment: ___________________________________________________ major issue(s) raised in the reading club missed in your preliminary evaluation: final assessment: _______________________________________________________________