Posted: April 6th, 2016

Neuroscience Research Reports

Write a short summary of what you think the study shows. This should be in your own words [don’t just paraphrase the abstract or paragraphs from the discussion section], and should not necessarily agree with what the authors think that the study shows.
2. Background and Perspective
This section should represent your background reading, including both works cited in the bibliography of the paper, and works you find by reading at least two recent reviews on this subject by different authors. Remember, it is very important to get independent views on the subject matter – don’t only read reviews by the authors of the main paper or by their collaborators. It is important that you cite your sources properly (as is done in the paper you are reviewing), and that you include a bibliography at the end with the references you cite. You will also have a second bibliography for works you consulted in the preparation of this review, but did not end up citing to support any particular point (see below).
It is also important to organize your ideas in a sequence that will make sense to the reader. Start with the most general level of explanation for the area your paper belongs to, and get down to the more specific details so that a reader will have a feel for how the particular experiments you are reviewing fit into the larger field of scientific knowledge.
3. Methods and Results
Present the methods that were used in your own words at a reasonable level of detail, as if you were explaining how the experiment was done to a non-scientist your own age. A reasonable level of detail means that we are interested in the principles behind the methods, not all of the minutiae of the methods themselves. If you had to consult other sources to understand a method, please cite them here. If there are things you do not understand, please list them.
The presentation of the results in this section should be according to what the authors of the papers think they have shown, and why they think they have shown it.
4. Your analysis of the results
This section should present your independent analysis of the authors’ results, indicating why you either agree with their findings or disagree with them. Again, you should cite the work you use to bolster your opinions.
Whether you end up agreeing or disagreeing with the author, this section should be organized in the following way:
(a) Good aspects of the design and interpretation of this work;
(b) Aspects of design and interpretation which you think could have been done better;
(c) Your independent assessment of the results and interpretation of this study.
5. Bibliography of works you cite
Use the same reference formats as the journal article you are reviewing.
6. Bibliography of works you used to prepare the paper but do not specifically cite
Same formats as above.