🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →

HomeClass Notes1,200,000US530,000

BIO 1500 Lecture Notes - Oil Immersion, Cell Culture, Lab Report

4 views5 pages

25 Dec 2022

School

Wayne State University

Department

Course

Professor

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Understand what content belongs in different parts of a scientific paper. Background information about the topic, references to previous studies, identify the research questions and hypotheses of the current study. Describes the methodology of the study in such a way as to be reproducible by other researchers. Reports the results of the study in text, graphs, and tables. Interprets the results of the study, provides context for those results, reports shortcomings of the study, draws conclusions based on the results, and suggests topics or areas that can benefit from further investigation. Full citation for each reference used in the paper. Be able to determine which section a written passage belongs in and/or determine if a passage is incorrectly included in a section of a lab report. Identify examples of and different types of plagiarism. Plagiarism is using ideas or work as your own that was produced by someone else or for a different purpose.

Related textbook solutions

Molecular Cell Biology

ISBN: 9781464183393

Biology: Science for Life with Physiology

ISBN: 9780134555430

Concepts of Biology

ISBN: 9781938168116

Biology

2nd Edition, 2013

ISBN: 9781947172517

Essentials of Biology

ISBN: 9781259660269

Related Documents

ANT203H5 Lecture Notes - Open Peer Review, Scholarly Peer Review, Blackboard

BIO 103 Lecture 1: Evaluating Info

orchidporpoise453

INI300H1 Chapter Notes -The Dilemma, Computer Network, Hertz

raspberrygnat664

Related Questions

Match all the informations below with which part of a scientific article you can find them in:

1- where did the funding for the study come from

[ Choose ] Citation Discussion Acknowledgements Materials and Methods References Introduction Results

2- what previous publications did the study build on

[ Choose ] Citation Discussion Acknowledgements Materials and Methods References Introduction Results

3- The purpose of the study

[ Choose ] Citation Discussion Acknowledgements Materials and Methods References Introduction Results

4- the interpretation of the results

[ Choose ] Citation Discussion Acknowledgements Materials and Methods References Introduction Results

5- the journal the paper was published in

[ Choose ] Citation Discussion Acknowledgements Materials and Methods References Introduction Results

6- the original findings of the study

[ Choose ] Citation Discussion Acknowledgements Materials and Methods References Introduction Results

7- the experimental method and techniques used

[ Choose ] Citation Discussion Acknowledgements Materials and Methods References Introduction Results

8- the purpose of the study

[ Choose ] Citation Discussion Acknowledgements Materials and Methods References Introduction Results

9- who helped the authors before the paper was submitted

[ Choose ] Citation Discussion Acknowledgements Materials and Methods References Introduction Results

magentatrout723

Both the background information and the conclusion are found inthis section of a scientific article:

	Abstract
	Introduction
	Materials and Methods
	Results
	Conclusion
	References

Article: Basal forebrain degeneration precedes and predicts the cortical spread of Alzheimerâs pathology

https://bbl.westfield.ma.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-1058990-dt-content-rid-12869706_1/courses/wsu_BIOL0333001_2018fall/Alzheimers.pdf

-Please do not use direct quotes from the article-

2. Hypotheses:

a) What are the hypotheses? (list all hypotheses proposed)

b) Is the reasoning behind the hypotheses explained? What is the logic behind each hypothesis?

3. Introduction:

a) Does the introduction provide appropriate background for the study? Why or why not?

b) Is the introduction missing useful information that would have been helpful? If so, explain. For example, did you have to look up any additional information?

c) Is the relevance of the work clear? What is the relevance of the work?

4. Methods:

a) Summarize the methods that were used.

b) Were the methods appropriate? {Was this the best way to test the hypotheses? Were there problems with the methodology (if so describe them)?}

5. Analysis:

a) Were there any problems with the data analysis, including use of statistics?

b) Did the authors present quantitative data in a clear way (use of graphs/tables)?

6. Your OWN assessment of the results:

a) List YOUR conclusions from the DATA presented?

b) Do you feel that the author's conclusions are reasonable and justified? If there are any problems with the authorâs conclusions, explain them.

c) Does the author ignore any aspects of the results?

7. Discussion:

a) Did the authors compare their results with previous published papers? If so, provide at least 1 example.

b) Are the implications of the results properly discussed (how do these results relate back to the âbig pictureâ of what is being studied)? What are the implications?

c) Are the conclusions clearly stated? If so, what are they?

d) In addition to what the authors discussed, what further studies would YOU find interesting to pursue?

8. Abstract (if there is one):

a) Does the Abstract really give an appropriate summary of the paper?