Suggestions for better papers

• What the judges look for in a paper

• Why judges reject papers

Suggestions for better papers

What the judges look for in a paper:

1.Objectives that are clearly stated in the introduction

2. Concise methods that are logical and free from jargon

3.Results that relate to the objectives

4.Conclusions that are justified by the results

Organization

• Introduction

• Materials and methods

• Results

• Discussion

• Conclusion

Introduction

• Include some background

• State your objectives

• Explain why the research is important

• If your research is similar to something published, explain how your work is different

• We often reject papers that are “copies” of published work

Materials and Methods

• Should be a logical description of what you did

• Make sure that a lay person would understand your methods

• Explain how your methods will allow you to meet your objectives

• Do not list materials used in your project

Results

• The most important section of your paper (and your presentation)

• Should be easy to interpret by all judges

• Emphasize the important points of your results (don’t make us guess)

Results: Figures

• Usually better than tables

• Make sure that figures can stand alone

• Make sure that the figures clearly indicate something important

• Each figure should be referenced in the text of your results

Discussion and Conclusion

• Should relate to the objectives stated in the introduction

• Should be clearly tied to your results and should not go beyond your data

Why judges reject papers

• Literature searches

• Work that is a repeat of something published and does not expand beyond the original work

• Poor study design

• If we cannot interpret your results

• If we do not understand what the figures are supposed to indicate

Problems in Study Design

• Sample size insufficient to indicate a trend

• Samples insufficiently distributed on the x-axis

• Samples should usually be randomly drawn and independent of one another

Not enough data to indicate a trend

1011121314151617181920

10 15 20 25

Sample insufficiently distributed on the x-axis

1011121314151617181920

10 15 20 25

r2=0.78, F1,4=6.07, P=0.032

Balanced Linear Regression

0.0

3.0

6.0

9.0

12.0

0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0

y_axis vs x_axis

x_axis

y_axi

s

r2=0.89, F1,38=389, P=0.000

Sample insufficient across the x-axis

4.5

5.5

6.5

7.5

8.5

6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0

y_axis vs x_axis

x_axis

y_axi

s

r2=0.01, F1,38=.07, P=0.841

Independent Samples?

When are non-independent samples are OK?

• Multiple measurements on an individual to track a response

• Before and after measurements on subjects

• Can be dealt with statistically (repeated measures ANOVA or paired t-tests)

Statistical outliers

• What do we do with outliers?

• Do nothing when you can’t justify deleting

• In regression, conduct “robust regression”

• Delete if you can justify

Examples from previous speakers

• To illustrate some common problems

Figure 1 Density of Epidermal Nerve Fibers (# nerve branches per Millimeter of epidermal border length + Standard Error)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Control Pre-Diabetic Diabetic

Avera

ge N

erv

e C

ount

Control

Pre-Diabetic

Diabetic

Figure 1 Density of Epidermal Nerve Fibers (# nerve branches per Millimeter of epidermal border length + Standard Error)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Control Pre-Diabetic Diabetic

Avera

ge N

erv

e C

ount

Rule 2: Avoid Jargon and be careful with abbreviations

DIFFERENTIALLY EXPRESSED GENES IDENTIFIED BY SAM

Positive Differentially Expressed Genes, 173

Non- Significant Genes, 6647

Negative Differentially Expressed Genes, 11

Positive Differentially Expressed Genes Negative Differentially Expressed Genes Non- Significant Genes

(pos 173) (neg 11) (neu. 6647)

0

2.5

5

7.5

10

12.5

15

17.5

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58

Genotypes

Tot

al p

olyp

heno

l (g

/100

g dr

y w

eigh

t)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Rad

ical

Sca

veng

ing

activ

ity

(m

ole

Tro

lox/

mg

dry

wei

ght)

Total PolyphenolRadical Scavenging Activity

Radical scavenging activity (µ mole Trolox/mg dry leaf powder) and total polyphenol (g/100 g dry leaf powder) in the leaves of 60 sweetpotato genotypes

High polyphenol accumulators

Medium polyphenol accumulator Low pp accumulatorsLow PP

accumulators

Linear correlations between the total polyphenol contents (g/100g dry matter) and radical scavenging activities (RSA;

mol Trolox/g DM) of sweet potato leaves

y = 0.1303x - 0.2843r = 0.85 (n= 30)

0.3

0.7

1.1

1.5

1.9

2.3

8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0Total Polyphenol

RSA

A

B

C

D

Photomicrographs A and B show crystals produced by 500 µM melamine and 500 µM cyanuric acid in H20 (sample 11), at 400X magnification and 40X magnification, respectively. Photomicrographs C and D show crystals

produced by 500 µM melamine and 500 µM cyanuric acid in artificial urine (Sample 6), at 400X magnification and 40X magnification, respectively.

Trial #3 Samples

Solution Weight (in grams) Visible Pellet

Pellet Weight (in grams)

1 0.8460 No n/d

2 0.6832 No n/d

3 1.0030 No 0.0021

4 0.9370 No 0.0033

5 1.0130 No 0.0029

6 0.8990 Yes 0.0136

7 0.9972 No 0.0100

8 0.8131 No 0.0001

9 0.7569 No 0.0055

10 1.0275 No 0.0010

11 1.0025 Yes 0.0016

Pellet weights for Trial 3 samples

•