1.    In no less than 2 pages (double spaced, 1” margins, 12 pt. Times New Roman font, default line spacing), summarize the articles title, authors, journal, date of publication, the hypothesis or experimental objective of the study, experimental findings (the data) and conclusions generated by the authors.

2.    Included in this 3 pages, please provide a robust commentary on the article, not just a summary of it.  You will not receive much (if any) credit for these if you just restate the contents of the papers and don’t reflect and critique them.  Did the experimental objectives get met in the study?  Was the design sufficient to enable this?  Would you have made any improvements?  Why or why not?  Were all the conclusions supported by the data published?  Why or why not?  Overall, was the manuscript effective and convincing?  Again, do not just summarize the article.  As biologists, I am interested in your thoughts, not only the objective contents of the paper.  Use your authentic voice to express your thoughts, rooted in your scientific training.  Failure to include this will lead to severe penalization in your awarded points from these extra credit opportunities.


Open chat