Tuyển tập các báo cáo nghiên cứu về sinh học được đăng trên tạp chí sinh học Journal of Biology đề tài: Are we training pit bulls to review our manuscripts. | Journal of Biology BioMed Central Comment Are we training pit bulls to review our manuscripts Virginia Walbot Address Department of Biology Stanford University Stanford CA 94305-5020 USA. Email walbot@ Published 9 March 2009 Journal of Biology 2009 8 24 doi jbiol125 The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at http content 8 3 24 2009 BioMed Central Ltd Abstract Good early training of graduate students and postdocs is needed to prevent them turning into future generations of manuscript-savaging reviewers. How can we intercalate typical papers into our training Who hasn t reacted with shock to a devastatingly negative review of a manuscript representing years of work by graduate students and postdoctoral fellows on a difficult unsolved question Detailed in its critique it relentlessly measures the work against a gold standard of excellence using the latest and best techniques before dismissing the years of labor and stating that the manuscript can only be reconsidered with substantially more data providing definitive proof of each claim. The other two reviews may be favorable - even recommending publication with few revisions - but how can an editor ignore that complete and negative review Your manuscript is declined with encouragement to resubmit when new data are added. I confess. I m partly responsible for training the pit-bull reviewer and I bet you are too. Graduate students read discuss and dissect classic papers as a key part of their training. At Stanford these discussion sections are led by faculty. The best practice papers chosen for close reading provide training in how to frame a question how to mine the literature for relevant biological materials to conduct new experiments and how to construct studies with appropriate controls and analyses to extract conclusions. Faculty ask students to summarize the article s claims gleaned from the abstract and discussion and then to judge the .
