Skip to content
Hope Center main logo
Narrow screen resolution Wide screen resolution Increase font size Decrease font size Default font size
Journal Club Format PDF Print E-mail
  • Instructions for Journal Club Presentations

    We have 30 minutes for each paper. There will be lots of discussion so your part of the presentation must take no more than 15 minutes. Time limits will be strictly enforced! The goal is a critical review (see below).  Identify strengths and weaknesses.

    You'll be reviewing papers outside your area of expertise.  If there's a topic, method, or result you don't understand, get more information before your presentation. Feel free to ask another student for help or review the presentation before the class.  If you're still confused, find another expert or ask the guest speaker.

    We have the following A-V options:  PC or your own laptop (classroom PC much preferred).  Computer presentations must be in PowerPoint for Windows.   You should bring your PowerPoint presentation on a USB flash memory drive.  If you choose to bring your own laptop, please come 15  min before class to make sure it's working! 
     
    Please use good graphics.  The text must be visible from the back of the room.  In general this means no more than 7 lines of text or >= 20 pt fonts.  Don't just type out your presentation. Enlarge figures and tables to fill the page.  Many journals are on line, so you can often download the pictures over the internet.  

    It's fine to use images (graphics, schematics etc.) obtained by scanning or taken from the web. You must indicate the source of each image (other than the paper you are reviewing) on the same page.  If you present text from a paper, put it in quotes and show the source.


  • Suggested Presentation Format:

    1. Set up the issue; what is the intellectual context or paradigm within which the study was conceived?

    2. What is the hypothesis? Consider whether the hypothesis is reasonable in the above context.

    3. What is the experimental design? Is the design reasonable? Is it feasible? Does the design test the hypothesis? Is the model appropriate for the disease under consideration?

    4. What are the main findings? Are the data depicted in a straightforward fashion? Are the statistics appropriate? What are the secondary findings?

    5. What is your interpretation of the data? What is the author's interpretation? If these differ, is one interpretation more reasonable than the other? Does the author's interpretation incorporate the findings in their entirety or in a selective fashion? Does the interpretation make sense in the present paradigm? Or does it challenge conventional thinking, etc.

    6. What would be the next important experiment to confirm, extend, refute, the findings?