Peer Edit Checklist Research Paper
By Daniel Bor in neuroimaging Over this week, there has been a striking debate in the blogosphere and on Twitter concerning the flaws in many published neuroimaging studies.
His partial explanation was that this was in a different age, with more lax conventions and admittedly he was only a minor author on the paper himself. Late Tuesday night, Neurocritic posted a provocative blog article in response to this, asking the question: Two key issues quickly surfaced: I thought it might help in this discussion to explain one of the main statistical issues that this debate is pinned on, that of corrected versus uncorrected statistics, and how this applies to brain-scanning.
And if many published imaging papers are so flawed, I want to try to explain how the literature became so sloppy. Just to flag up that this blog is addressing two audiences.
I wanted to explain the context of the debate to a general audience, which occurs in the next two sections, and suggest how they can assess neuroimaging stories in the light of this in the last small section. The middle sections, although hopefully understandable and maybe even of some interest to all, is directed more at fellow scientists.
So what are corrected and uncorrected statistics? Imagine that you are running some experiment, say, to see if corporate bankers have lower empathy than the normal population, by giving them and a control group an empathy questionnaire.
How can you tell whether this is just some random result, or that bankers really do have lower empathy?
This is the point where statistical testing enters the frame. Classically, a statistical test will churn out a probability that you would have got the same result, just by chance. All well and good, but what if you also tested your control group against politicians, estate agents, CEOs and so on?
His mojo must be building! So he tries again, and again and again. Then, as if by magic, on the 20th attempt, he gets all 4 heads. Joe Superstitious proudly concludes that he is in fact very skilled at telekinesis, puts the coin in his pocket and saunters off.
Joe Superstitious was obviously flawed in his thinking, but the reason is actually because he was using uncorrected statistics, just as the empathy study would have been if it concluded that bankers are less empathic than normal people.
If you do multiple tests, you normally have to apply some mathematical correction to take account of how many tests you ran. How does this apply to brainscanning?Peer editing is when another thing repercussions at your life to use errors peer edit checklist research paper store, coherence, spelling, good research paper .
Research Paper Checklist: Peer Editing Research Paper Checklist Author Check Peer Check Description Points (20) Title Page Header Visible with Student’s Last name, space and page number: Choose research paper peer editing checklist1 Author: latifr Created Date.
Automatic works cited and bibliography formatting for MLA, APA and Chicago/Turabian citation styles.
Now supports 7th edition of MLA. Is the research thoroughly documented? Is the research integrated into the paper, or does it "weigh down" the paper, obscuring the writer's ideas? How could the writer more successfully integrate sources into his or her paper? Marking the draft.
If you are working with a photocopied version of a paper, feel free to write a few comments and suggestions. Weebly makes it surprisingly easy to create a high-quality website, blog or online store.
Over 40 million people use Weebly to bring their unique ideas to life. By choosing us to create your research paper editing checklist you can be sure of getting the most effective and unique checklist. Our Writers Can also help you design Checklist For Writing A Research Paper, Peer Editing Checklist For Research Papers, Research Paper Checklist High School, and Apa Research Paper Checklist.