How to constructively critique a manuscript: Literature Review

by El-Kenawi, A.*

Objectives:

1. Individual effort: Each student will prepare a lay abstract (400 words, also known as
   research highlight) ahead of the class to summarize the paper. Lay abstracts are a way
   to convey the summary of scientific work to audience with very low experience in the
   subject. Examples of these audience are scientists in other field, public, patient
   advocates and funding agencies administrators. The best two lay abstracts will be
   published in this blog with the student’s name highlighted (only with the students’ permission).
   Examples of research highlights here
   Tip: don’t use complicated terms. Think of analogy and applications which can benefit
   the public.
2. Team-effort: Students can work together on brief introduction to the paper (15 min) that
   include background, important figures and their conclusion for the paper. Each student
   can present a section or 1-2 slides.
   
3. We will then open discussion addressing the following (during class time):
   • -What main points the authors were trying to make?
   • -Are all the results obtained consistent with the hypothesis being tested? If not please
     give an example.
   • -What sort of evidence (additional suggested experiment/ or a modification of already
     reported experiment) would make the authors’ case stronger?
   • -What sort of evidence would argue against the authors story? You can cite other papers.
   • -Can you find over- statements in the text that is not supported by data? In other words,
     did the authors provide substantive support for their position? Which conclusions are
     directly drawn from the analysis of the results, and which are more speculative?
   • -Can you suggest rephrasing to make these speculative statements more precise
     reflecting the actual data presented? This can be used by the reviewer as a feedback for the authors instead of asking for new experiments.
   • -What case would a “skeptical scientist” make against the authors’ interpretation of their
     results?
   • -Fun: ” Wrong answers only” Can you come with an overstatement or wrong conclusion of any of the figures?
   • -After answering these question, can you check the peer-review publicly posted report if available. eLife posts peer-review report. please suggest other journals with similar policies.
     

Research Article Assignments:

• 2022
  Wilfahrt, et al., 2021: Histone deacetylase 3 represses cholesterol efflux during CD4+ T-cell
  activation. eLife
  Check out Sara Leahey commentary here.
• 2023
  Fowler et al., 2022: Inflammatory stress signaling via NF-kB alters accessible cholesterol to
  upregulate SREBP2 transcriptional activity in endothelial cells. eLife
  Check out Krystal Villalobos-Ayala commentary here.

*I give this class as a part of Cancer Immunotherapy, Immunology PhD Program.