Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39508573›Full record

ArticleJournal of microbiology & biology education2024

Training undergraduate biomedical science majors in peer review and constructive criticism through a senior capstone course.

Kelly J Collins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of microbiology & biology education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Kelly J CollinsDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology, and Cell Biology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA.ORCID 0009-0008-8404-8867

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Effective scientific communication is crucial for undergraduate students to succeed in future graduate or professional careers in the biomedical sciences. Peer review and constructive criticism are essential to producing written science communications. Unfortunately, training in how to perform peer review and incorporate constructive criticism is minimal in undergraduate science courses. Here, I describe a senior thesis course for immunology and microbiology majors that encourages students to integrate iterative peer review to improve their writing skills and their ability to incorporate feedback. In this course, students are expected to complete one of the following written projects that focuses on an immunological disorder or infectious disease: a research proposal, a case study, or a meta-analysis/systematic review. Each project is separated into six assignments, and each assignment is assessed through specifications (SPECS)-based grading and peer review where students have multiple attempts to improve their scores on each assignment. Approximately 40% of each student's grade is based on their ability to incorporate feedback from peers and instructors. Preliminary survey results suggest that students are eager to learn how to effectively incorporate peer and instructor feedback. Enhancing training in peer review will encourage students to embrace constructive criticism, which will be essential for their future careers. Initial findings indicate that students are positively engaging with the peer-review process, and the use of SPECS grading fosters a growth mindset. Continued research will further explore how this method can enhance students' confidence and skill in integrating feedback into professional scientific communication.

Indexed as

assessmentconstructive criticismgrowth mindsetiterative feedbackpeer reviewscientific communicationsenior thesisspecifications based gradingSPECs gradingwriting

Identifiers

PMID39508573
PMCPMC11636314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.