Computer generated transcript

Warning!
The following transcript was generated automatically from the content and has not been checked or corrected manually.

um, the paper is from, um it should be a good like paper. It shouldn't just be like some random if I mean, I guess if there's an appeal review journal is good paper. But I think personally to stay on the safe side, I'd want it to be, you know, in, like a decent journal, um, and cited by, you know, like a fair few amount people. And, you know, like if it's got authors from people that, um, you know, have been lectured by you don't think that's a bad thing. I almost think that's a good thing because they like, you know, they know it's a good paper. Um, obviously, if you're choosing really cabins paper, it's obviously a bit difficult because they really know they're an experiment. But maybe a paper that's, you know, from a lecturer that you've had or something. I always think that's quite a good choice. Um, personally, yeah, in terms of structure, do you think it's better that we kind of go through things chronic logically like talk about the intervention outcome results kind of thing? Or do you think we kind of say, discuss the results of the paper like first and then kind of critique it as we go along. So they like you to kind of have a nice flow where you're kind of constantly like entwining, critiquing and things. And it's meant to be like a nice flowing story where you like comment on this, but critique bit of critique. Not like a bulk of critique at the end, like in a bulk of future directions at the end, they, like, very like, entwined throughout your like writing piece, I think. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Um, for one of the papers that I was having a look at when I was trying to pick my own paper, Um, like I was reading because it was really interesting. And then when I read, when I looked through all the authors, the second last, um, name was someone from a pharmaceutical company and like the paper was about, like, a potential like cancer drug. Would that be considered one of the limitations of the paper? Or is it just really common for pharmaceutical companies to be involved in, um, looking for new pharmaceutical interventions? I see you have issues with this and things. Um yeah, I think I think commenting on things like that or it's a bit like I'm not sure about it. And Kevin are looking for that because they're looking for really excited critiquing, not more like, Oh, you know, they could have swayed the result for the pharmaceutical company. Kind of think best of interest things, right? So I think critiquing or something like that would be more like a weaker point I'd stay away from. I steer away from points like that and more to do with, like, the experiment itself. Okay, personally. So it would be better just to not mention it, because I personally like I didn't think it was that big of a limitation, but I wasn't sure if I was meant to mention it or not. Yeah, obviously, yeah, It's a whole best of those things which they mentioned the end of the paper. But, like in terms of what they want, it's not something that would be mentioned in nature. Music views typically. Okay, thank you and kind of side points. Guys like don't they hate it when you say things like, Oh, my God. The sample size isn't big enough or something, because they're like, if you want to do that. You really need to go into, like, power calculations and stuff. I'm not sure if they talk to you about that. Um, so yeah. Or like, don't just say something like a loose comment like, Oh, it was done in mice. That means it's not, you know, relevant to humans. If you're going to say something like that, you need to comment on the difference. Is the physiology between, like, amount of human? Um, in terms of your experiment, that makes sense. Yeah, a few more questions also. Thanks for a meeting, Guys. Makes it a lot more like interactive. Are you guys enjoying and do? So far? Um, it kind of feels like you can throw it in the deep end with this. I kind of like I know, I know. It's horrible and like the stress levels, whenever I see a gets released, so that way you'll get used to it will be like another. I say, Let's go. Hopefully, uh, it's like I feel like for like the my studies, it's just like, difficult to think of many like compared to like human experiments just because, like in human experiment, there's like a lot of bias And, um, like some other confounding factors that, like we've been taught before and stuff. But then, um, since a lot of endocrinology papers are like a rodent experimented. So it's kind of like I feel like it's quite like tricky to find many limitations, many limitations. I mean, if you're finding that sugar, this is a bit cheaper, but you can look up like, you know, people like looked up review articles and sometimes papers they did we already mentioned. So you can kind of think of the limitations they use to kind of think about like other limitations that are similar or kind of their. You know, they're kind of concepts. And even if it's not your paper, other papers to do with that topic and then use your concepts and think about how you can maybe link it to yours, Um, that's another way of doing it. If you see any reviews that mentioned papers like yours, actually, is it possible that once you've finished our draft a paper, if you could send it to you, you could I can try to do that. I'd read it on time. You buddies. I know I have people I don't know if you guys have a buddy. Uh, so, like the body scheme? Yeah. Usually the body skin is the best person. Because then they'll hopefully, like, have the time. Just because if I'm reading my buddies and then also might not be able to read it properly. Sorry. Yeah, that would be the best. Yeah, um, in terms of like, because in a lot of the papers, there's a lot of, like, background, um, content. Um, like, in terms of how much of our 1000 words should be like the background. How much do you think? Like we should be, um, dedicating to to the background or not very much at all. Like maybe like you're just trying to set the scene for the readers because this is the scientists that are like their scientist, but they're not experts in your field. So you're just trying to set the scene and what the situation is like, For example, I did the armadillo. What does the armadillo do? We already know about this situation, um, and then go into, like, go into the experiment straight away. But don't wait to make too many words on that at all. like four lines is fine or something. Just setting the seen very much mhm. And you really try to start very interesting. How would you, um, like structure go about actually structuring the whole thing? Like I said, after talking about the background, would you dive into, like, critiquing the method like the selection of patients all over? Yes. So I just, for example, So I sat out like a background of the things that we're trying to find, like, uh, the topic in general not to do anything with the study. That's the thing that should be kept very brief. Then I'd be like, This study's the first show. This is this. And then I go in like a chronicle chronological order of the events of the experiment and try to entwine critiquing as I go along telling that story is basically literally telling the story of the entire experiment with critiquing inside it to summarize it. For a reader that's not an expert in the field. Does that make sense? Yeah, but like just start reeling off the don't like to summarize the paper in terms of like they hate it when you just like list methods like very just copy the methods of the paper. Be like, very pick bits out, summarizes and then, like, pick bits out to critique on. That makes sense. Don't be like a petted five mills or something. Don't do that. Well, I'd rather than saying, Like they took out this gene. Just say, Oh, this was a knockout. They didn't knock out of this thing. And mice like I don't like going to the minute details of how they were not working out things unless it's relevant. Critiquing, of course, but yeah. Business. Yeah. Any more questions? I got my You want to ask any questions? And of course, if your buddies aren't reading your work to send it to me, I don't do my best, even whatever, guys. But I can't guarantee that it will get back to you. Sure. I was just gonna ask in terms. Oh, sorry. I didn't want to say something. Oh, I was just gonna ask in terms of say, we talked about the methodology, Then we talk about a limitation. Then we talk about future. How we would redo it in the future. Say, would that do we have to do that for each one. Or do we just need to do that occasionally? As in talking about how we think this study could have been done better in the future, I think they like doing because it's all about, you know, um, synthesis. And like, thinking about something else you could do and stuff, Of course. Don't force it. Like, if you can't think of anything, just just leave it. But it's quite nice to mention, like, alternatively, maybe the, you know, the people can do this or something like that. Okay, so do we Should we do that, like, within the main body of our work? Or should we say that? And the conclusion I would personally try to entwine it into my critique. And then, as a conclusion, I put kind of future directions as a whole for the entire, you know, um, the entire top field. Sorry. Yeah, exactly. Field is like a whole huge direction, but in terms of little things that could have done alternatively, I try to entwine it. I think that's what they like. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Just try to make it very easy to read guys. And very clear, very, very clear. Kevin's gone over his strange, like literacy thing. Like making sentences very simple to read and things, but they don't like long sentences and things. So it's just something that gives him an excuse to mark you down. So try not to do stuff like that. Anything else? Well, that's okay. I was so tired. Anything else? Guys, it's not letting me type in the chart. So my short quote code is a P 6118. If you want to email me about any questions or anything, Um, I just wanted to ask, uh if, like you mentioned, um, it would probably be better to pick, um, something that one of the lectures had done. Um, but it's just I was looking at a topic that they haven't covered yet. Um, which they said was okay. Yeah, they're fine with anything. They're fine with anything. I just think in terms of understandable nous, usually the ones that have done by lectures are quite understandable. Um, that's what I mean, but they're happy with any paper. I'm not sure they're giving you like a like a year time limit, though. I know for a year within five years or something. Um just check on that. Yeah, okay. Cheese, Anything? Yeah. Also, um, do you know where we can find, Uh, do you think the nature news and views if we read those, it will give us a good idea of Like what? I see A should look like or stay like, previous years. Examples. Um, so, yeah, I think nature news and views are quite good, but I always think they always sound really, really, like, more interesting and less like Critique Key is like bread and Kevin want it. But it's definitely good to have a read, too, just to see, like, general style, all these examples of what your body will have and we'll send you. Um, just so like, one person is going to an entire in case people start copying one person and things. So ask your buddy if you would like to have an example affairs or something, and they will send you. Uh, yes. Okay. Where do you get buddy? Don't think I have one. Um, so meds. Um, they set up a scheme Cola. I think if you email them, they could assign you one. Oh, no. Um, yeah. Drop. Drop them. An email I think. Yeah. Yeah. I hope you get one, too. Anything else? So it's not, um we can end it here. And you guys can have a nice rest of your evening. Is that okay? Any more questions? No, thank you. No worries, guys. See you. Have a nice evening by you too. Bye.