Computer generated transcript

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

OK. So for those of you who have already joined, we'll just give it till 705 to see if um anyone else moves a little bit late and then we'll get started. All right, so we'll get started. Um Thank you to those of you who have joined. Um So, hi, everyone. Um Welcome to the ICA for talk. Uh My name is Shruti um and I'm currently 1/5 year uh just for a little bit of context. Uh I did the cardiovascular um BSE last year, but a lot of what we're discussing is relevant to um you know, all of the medical BSE S and I'm happy to uh answer any questions if you guys have anything more specifically as well. Um ab about if any of you were doing the cardio um BSE. So hopefully you find today useful um just to get a little bit of an idea about how to approach IC four, but also um to kind of get a little bit of ideas in terms of tips uh for your first draft because I know your um deadline for the first draft is, is approaching on uh Wednesday. Um And obviously, if anything I say is different from what your module leads have said, then go with what they say, of course. Um And a lot of this is to do with group work. So it's different from your other ICA S. But I know you guys have been working together for almost two weeks now. So you should be familiar with um all of that. Um Obviously, as we go through today, if you've got any questions, then drop them in the chat. And I'm more than happy to go through them as we go along. If I do miss anything out, then I will go through it at the end. So keep them coming through anyway. So just a quick overview of uh the things that we're gonna cover. So um starting off with a little timeline and the sort of marks distribution, I'm sure you guys are familiar with this. So, um I will keep it brief, we'll then discuss a little bit about search strategy and the first draft. Now, bearing in mind that your first draft deadline is in sort of less than two days. Now, um I've tried to keep this brief and more focused on tips to sort of perfect and um finalize your draft and sort of general tips um as opposed to kind of going from the start in terms of the basics um of how you would conduct the search um in the first place. We'll then go into a bit more depth about the cover letter, peer review and rebuttal, which you guys haven't started yet. Um So just a little bit about the submission timeline. Um Obviously, we're kind of a couple of days before um the first draft deadline, but I think the more difficult deadlines to navigate in January were the S IC, which comes kind of a couple of days into your final draft. Um And I think that was quite difficult to manage. But one thing that a lot of us did was we sort of predis discussed that we'll spend a few days after um peer review to actually just focus on the S IC only. Um and sort of get that out of the way. And then once that was out of the way, we sort of all, you know, knuckled down and got on with the final draft and I think it is definitely doable and it might be better than trying to balance both at the same time. Um But do what works for you and your group as a whole. So just a breakdown of uh the marks for the uh the literature review. So this is 60% of module two. So the other 40% being your sac and it's 15% of the overall BSE for Imperial students. I know it's slightly different for externals. Um and the individual components. Um The first part is the critical summary of topics. So this is basically your first draft and it's worth 50 percent of um the ICA as a whole. Um, the peer review rebuttal and final draft might look like they're each worth sort of a smaller proportion, which is true. But considering that they add up to 50% it can make a huge difference to your overall mark. So try not to sort of slack with the later components. And I think that if you've got a really good first draft, it becomes quite easy to do the rebuttal. And so, you know, getting a lot of the work out of the way now means that you'll find the later steps a lot easier. Now, just a quick recap. Um Remember that IC four is about doing a narrative literature review and not a systematic literature review. So to be honest, you don't really have the time to do a systematic literature review properly anyway, but this is something that they highlight again and again. Um the difference is that with a narrative literature review, you're not looking at all of the evidence available. Um You're looking at key sort of seminal studies is what they call it. Um which means kind of like um articles that are key influencing the sort of um direction of knowledge in that field. Um And you want to work with those studies only, you're not looking at every single study that's been done on that topic. That's when you kind of do a systematic literature review. Um and that requires kind of a more solid methodology. And when you write it up, you need to give quite a lot of focus on that. Since you're not doing that, this is not something you want to be doing in your IC for. You don't need to kind of go through all the search terms and you know, whatever you did to, to find your papers. So, um I'm not gonna dwell on this for too long because I think you're all a little bit past this stage. Um But one thing that's worth pointing out, as I said is um the fact that this is all to do with uh the seminal article. So you wanna look at the key articles and kind of summarize viewpoints um that are available in the literature and what sort of current understanding is, you don't need to discuss all the papers and you don't need to show that you've, you've sort of sifted through all the available literature either. Uh And this is important because you don't want that to be the focus of your write up. Your write up should be sort of geared towards um the critical appraisal of the papers that you're including. So you wanna choose out some of the seminal articles. So the key articles and you want to discuss what the gaps are, what the controversies are, what current work has been done, what still needs to be done. Um And so you kind of want to build up a, an interesting discussion as opposed to kind of coming to a conclusion about the available literature in a, in a sort of quantitative manner. And also another thing that's worth highlighting here is that this is something that they mention. Again. And again, you want a lot of your papers that you're um discussing to be primary papers. So just to be clear that you're writing a review, but the papers that you discuss in your review should ideally be primary in the sense that they should be sort of, um, you know, a randomized controlled trial or an observational trial or something rather than reviews or meta analyses that you're using. Now having said that that doesn't mean that reviews are completely useless. Um, you guys would have probably come across a few reviews at the start when you were, um, sort of reading up on and getting an idea of the sort of baseline topic you can use these, but mostly in your introduction because for your introduction, it, these kind of broad papers are actually quite useful because they help set the scene. But when you're discussing papers, when you're in your actual main discussion, these articles should be primary and this is something that they do look into. Um, so do try and avoid or try to sort of reduce um the number of reviews that you're including. I know it can be a little bit difficult at this stage, but still where possible, try and avoid it. So um just a little bit about general planning. Now, this is some of this would have been, you know, when you back when you started um the first draft, but I think you can think of um the IC four is kind of like multiple mini sub tasks. So before you start each subtask, I'd ideally advise you guys sit down and discuss how you're gonna spend the next few days, you know, how you're going to approach the task and so on, just so that you guys are all on the same page because as you can see, the deadlines are quite cramped up one behind the other. Um And it, it's important to make sure that you're all kind of heading in the same direction. Um The other thing is I would personally advise that you split the work but meet regularly. So some groups do sort of do all the work together, but that can get sort of overwhelming for some people. Um And some people don't meet as, as much, but I think that actually meeting regularly is important because everyone has very different ideas about research and when you're working on a root project, um you don't want that sort of disjointed feeling at the end when you put things together. So you need to kind of be going in the same direction. So meeting regularly is very important for that, even if it's for short periods of time. The other thing is you ideally want to be setting yourself internal deadlines um and make sure that they have realistic time frames. So make sure that you kind of are very open and, and specific about exactly what you individually are going to be doing, you know, until over the next couple days until your next meeting. Um and so on and make sure you support each other early. Go to that saying it's a, it's a group task, some sort of sub tasks will take longer than others and you know, looking out for each other and supporting them when you can, will mean that you're not all stressed the night before submission, which can be stressful anyway. Um So this, I'm gonna skip through a little bit. So this is how to sort of conduct a comprehensive search strategy. I hope you were taught how to do this. Um Because I'm sure you guys are well ahead of this stage. But also I think it's not super relevant to the write up itself because it's a narrative literature review. Um Whereas if it was a systematic literature review, you would need to kind of include all of these in your write up. And so it would be a little bit more worth your time. Um So I'm going to skip through this if anyone has any questions, so feel free to ask. Now, we're gonna go for some tips for the first draft. I know you guys are almost kind of, you've probably written up your sort of pre first drafts you've probably discussed. So, um we're kind of talking about how to kind of make changes and kind of adapt um over the last, you know, day and a bit. Um So the first thing that I would say is you definitely want to develop a strong narrative um flow. So what this means is that you want to go clearly from start to your discussion points. So your introduction, you want to set the scene, what the issue is, what the topic is, how it's clinically relevant, you want to discuss, you know, the various different aspects of your um topic and then you want to come to a conclusion and it needs to flow. So everything that the, the the marker reads needs to kind of add something they need to feel as though um you're adding value with each point or each paragraph that you, that you um have included rather than it being kind of a jumble of just summarizing random things. The second thing is that it is a critical summary. So you don't need to address every single papers we discussed rather what you need to do is you need to focus on, I see giving um the, the reader an idea of what's going on. So what the paper has discussed what the paper has done for a start. But the main focus isn't that the, the the place where you're gonna get marks is by, um, discussing what the strength of that paper was, what it contributed to the field. So how that's kind of advanced current knowledge, um, and then moving on to, um, uh, sort of the limitations and what future steps need to be done to sort of resolve any controversies. Now, this isn't something that you have to necessarily do one paper at a time and actually I'd say it's not great to do it that way. It's better to discuss two or three papers. Um You know, depending on, on the point we're trying to make, um, and discuss the sort of available literature together. So, you know, what did one contribute that another did and, and, and so on and what are the controversies, what, what things are contradicted? Um And how could we resolve this with future work? Um Finally being concise is uh very important. Now, 3500 words sounds like a lot. But actually, if you've chosen quite a broad topic, uh which I know it's quite difficult to change now, it can actually be quite challenging. So, um, make sure that you work on the linguistic aspect of things, um and make things short, clear and easy to understand, it's about communicating your ideas and the easier that the marker is able to understand what you're coming to say, the more likely you are to sort of gain points for, for, for whatever you're you're coming to say, so, integrate evidence. So don't just summarize. So try to avoid doing the one study, you know, discuss everything and then move on to the next study, make sure that you kind of pull it in together. Um Make sure that they're relevant though. So pull in the right things together by grouping them. Um So it does require a little bit of planning beforehand. Um connect to clinical practical implications. So there's something that they do tend to like. Um So try and if you've got, for example, a preclinical topic or something, um try to discuss how this is gonna have impact on clinical practice. Um And that's not something that you necessarily need to make up there might actually be papers out there. Um And that's something that we did uh as well and finally, depth is more important than novelty. So, hey, you're writing a review, you're not coming up with anything new, but rather you're coming up with interesting insights. So what does the current available literature offer? Um and you don't necessarily need to propose anything new or dig out something sort of super niche out of the paper, it's more about kind of the general trends and um you know what you're seeing across a few papers, um try to use tables and figures to your advantage. So firstly, because this reduces word count, but it also summarizes information into a very digestible manner. So um tables and figures are very, very useful. Um And I think a lot of groups do tend to want, you know, to use them to, to their maximum potential. Having said this, try to avoid just dumping in a table or a figure for the sake of it. Um It, it needs to feel like it's, you know, really useful um because otherwise it might be picked out a peer review which can kind of just work counterproductive and it, you know, gives you extra work as well for the final draft. Um everything must be referenced. So try to use referencing Softwares, but also leave time to check this at the end. Um I remember that we did use referencing software, but our group spent a lot of time, you know, um the night before submission trying to sort out the referencing so it can take longer than you might think. So try to avoid doing it in the last, you know, hours before submission. Um And finally, you make sure that the tone is clear, easy to follow and engaging for the reader. Now, I think a good way of doing this is by using organized subheading. So within your discussion, try to think of what the main topics are and keep them separate because it's just easier for the reader to understand, you know, what you're coming to say. So I am now gonna move on to um the car letter. Um So one second, let me just check. OK. Cool. So, um with the cover letter, it isn't formally marked. So please don't spend too much time on this. Um, it's kind of just a formality exercise just because this is what you would be doing in real life if you were submitting to a journal. Um, so they're just trying to get you, you know, you to have a feel of what it might be like. Um, so as I don't spend too much time on it, it shouldn't really take you too long. I think in our group, we kind of split off and a couple of us only worked on this and whilst the rest of us were doing something else, um the main things that you do need to include are firstly sort of address the editor to begin with. So just dear editor in chief, give your manuscripts title, some BSE S gave a journal name um that you're submitting to. So if, if your BSE did do that, then mention that in the in the cover letter, then just a quick statement to say that you haven't previously published or anything else. Again, just a formality exercise. And then I would say the main thing in this whole cover letter is it's a brief description. So this is where you're kind of selling your paper. Um So you just wanna in not, not sort of excessively long, sort of 4 to 5 lines. Um Quick brief description of what your paper is. Uh why the topic is important. So how, how is it clinically relevant? Um What benefit is a reader gonna get by reading it? Um, and so on and then a statement just to say no conflict of interest and then finish it off with, with your group. Remember names. Now, this whole thing is probably like less than a side long. Um, so it shouldn't take too long and because it's not marked, it shouldn't also use up too much of your time um because that can be spent better elsewhere. So, um moving on to the peer review now, I think this is the slightly more difficult task in the sense that we're all used to giving each other peer feedback. But um to do this in sort of an organized um systematic manner and to sort of communicate that in a written professional way can be quite difficult. So this is sometimes difficult for um is, is kind of the more challenging part or sub task for some groups. Um I think the main principle is review for others, the way that you'd want others to review for you. So make sure that you're being kind, make sure that you're being professional and this isn't a fault finding exercise. Um It's more of you trying to sit down and find genuine ways that you can improve someone's manuscript. So it, it's not about, you know what they've done wrong, but about how they can improve and you kind of need to reflect that in the way that you write, um, in the way that you put that across. Um, because an element of what they're assessing is your professionalism and how you're able to communicate what you're thinking if that makes sense. Um So the first step, this is kind of what you would do in your whole life. Um You would check whether the article is publishable. So, um, you'd have a quick general read at first and decide, you know, overall, is this OK or not? Um It's very rare for there to be, you know, such fatal flaws that you're gonna be saying that this is not publishable to invest instance. Um Also in the context of ICF four, you can't really say no because the couldn't really have any other way of moving forward. So if it's just more for you guys to quickly read through the paper as a whole and come up with, you know, what's your first impressions? Um What do you think? What, how, how convincing were, was their arguments? Um So I think the way that we did it was, we did the first step and we sort of spent some time individually reading the whole thing. Um No one went into sort of huge depth, um you know, reading individual papers that they mentioned or anything like that. Um It was more just to get an overall feel for um what the paper, what the, what their manuscript is about um and sort of what are the key strengths, what did we like about it? What kind of things kind of popped up straight to, to the faces like, oh, this is something that I want to look into um any sort of key logic gaps. Um And then we will sat down and discussed this together. So this is just to kind of set the scene. But the main step I would say is is the next step. So you then want to actually go through the whole thing in a lot of detail. So you kind of wanna pull everything apart. Um Now, at this point, I'm talking at sort of sentence level. So um you want to ideally split the paper into sort of section. So the way we did it, we broke the whole manuscript up into about five sections because there was five of us and then we each looked at two sections and I think that was useful because if we ordered one each, it would mean that kind of our full write up would be based on our full, a review would be based on one person's opinion per section. But because two of us looked at each thing, it meant that a lot of the confusion sometimes we were like, you know, that feels like a logic gap. But am I overthinking it, am I missing something? Um or you know, is this a major point or is this a minor point, we'll discuss what that is in a moment and things like that. So I think it is very useful for at least two people to check each thing. Um But at this stage, you ideally want to be breaking down um every sentence and looking through every single reference. Now, this might seem sound like a lot, but if you think about it now that you've broken it down into chunks, um it shouldn't be that much if you kind of, you know, spend a couple of days just looking at your section only. Um And you could perhaps create a shared doc um and then add comments to it. Um So in terms of what major and minor points are it, some of this is a little bit um sort of vague in the sense that you could justify it being a major or minor point and it would depend on the context. But generally, if you've missed sort of big references, like referencing just wasn't done for a whole paper or um you know, uh they've discussed your three points but only referenced one paper and things like that are major points. Um If the objectives haven't been stated, so you ideally want at the end of your introduction a clear aim. Um And if that's sort of not clear to the reader, then that's definitely a major point um methodology, not being reproducible errors in the data, illogical interpretation, I think this is the common one. So, um, it's not that it's intentional but it's more sort of kind of inappropriately drawn conclusions, um, in the sense that they use a paper to back up a point, but it's not quite saying exactly what, what they're concluding, but it is something similar. Um, and this can happen and it depends on to the extent, you know, to what extent that logic gap exists as to whether it's a major or minor. So sometimes you might drop that in a minor and sometimes you might drop that in a major, minor points tend to be things like spag um the way they've presented their data, um any like small errors and things like that or if they just haven't mentioned um like a key detail, like um you know, the example here they've given is how a reagent works or, you know, if it's crucial to the paper and they've missed it out, then that might be something more major. But generally, if it's just like minor technical things, then it would, it would fall into the minor category. Um So in terms of your main structure, once you've sort of sifted through the entire thing um and come up with a load of major points and minor points scattered throughout the paper, you then need to bring it all together. So you do have a 1000 word limit and this is super, super super um you know, restrictive because a lot of the words here are just kind of used up by, you know, the, the standard things, your introduction, your conclusion. And so you have very few words to actually work with in your, in your main section. Um So you need to learn about how to be concise and how to kind of get points across professionally as well. Um But within a limited space. Um so the introduction, you want to start off by thanking the authors for, for, for their submission. So be very professional about it, but don't waffle around. Um you know, just make sure that they're banked to make sure these things are done, but don't waste words on it. Um And then basically for the context of ICA four, you would say that, you know, you're gonna accept with major revisions or accept with minor revisions uh depending on the context. Um You then want to give a brief description of kind of what their paper is about and the strength of the study. So make sure you do highlight this before you move on to the major and minor revisions. That is where, you know, the bulk of the write up will be, but you should mention the strength of the study because I'm sure there will be loads. Um And it just sets a more professional tone. Um You then can discuss the major revisions, the minor revisions and then finally the conclusion and references. So it's a nice close direct. I think this is probably the, the main structure that most people would use. Um And it, the, the key here really is about keeping it concise. So, um you don't have a lot of words to waste and therefore every word that you do use should be meaningful. Um apart from, you know, the standard stuff that you have to include. So, um you will need to prioritize things um and you will need to, you know, decide which points you're gonna give more emphasis to which points you're gonna discuss in more depth. Um And you need to find ways of communicating concisely in general. One way of doing this would be grouping things. So this is something that we did where you might notice that there's a general pattern where they do the same thing a couple of times like, um they might have um done a little bit of misreference a couple of times or they might have, you know, drawn an inappropriate conclusion a couple of times or there might have been a logic gap a couple of times. So it might have been the same kind of thing repeated and it would be useful to group them and put it as a sort of collective statement to begin would be like. So there were a few instances of and describe what you're discussing and then list the examples under you and it saves you having to sort of repeat the same words again and again and that really saved us a lot of uh space. So I think that's something that's useful. And the other thing is that um you need to be specific about where you're seeing these examples. So the way you can do that is by giving the page number and then perhaps 4 to 5 words, like the 1st 4 to 5 words of, of the relevant phrase that is that you're kind of critiquing. Um The aim here is to make sure that the, the um markers can easily locate, you know, where the issue is, but you don't want to be wasting so many words by, you know, giving the whole sentence. Um because, you know, you just don't have that many words. Um And finally don't overdo the minor revisions. So minor things are minor, it's unlikely you're going to be able to gain a huge number of marks by kind of discussing loads and loads and loads of little minor revisions because it's not really critical and it's, it's very easy for people to kind of come up with Wes and Wes and means of issues with any paper. Um But if they're not really gonna change the quality of the manuscript and that's not really kind of achieving the aim of this task. So you can have minor revisions, you probably should, but try not to have like one major revision and that everything else will be minor um because you won't do as well in terms of your marks. So, um, I've got a question. My search for my topic is bringing too many results. How can I modify this for my search protocol? So, um, I'd say that actually if you, if you, if you're sort of still looking through to try and find papers, then I, I'd need a little bit more context about exactly what, what you're using as your topic. But you'd want to narrow the actual topic itself down. I don't know if this is gonna be super feasible for you at this stage, considering that, you know, a lot of the work has been done. But um something that we did was, for example, our, our topic was on congenital heart diseases. And we chose to focus on kind of tranquil heart defects, which is like one particular subtype of congenital heart diseases because it was just too much to, to focus on. And um it meant that we were able to go in a lot more depth with, you know, the the fewer papers available. So I think that's 11 way of going about it. A assuming that a lot of your existing draft is kind of focused in one direction. Um If you've kind of taken a broad overview overall, then I think that might be kind of more difficult at this stage. Um The other thing you can do is remember that this isn't a systematic literature review. They don't need to know your methodology. They don't need to know how you've gone about it. Um And therefore you're more than, you know, free to just randomly search things. You don't need to go through every paper, just do a sort of a general public search. Um And look for a sort of more specific things like, you know, whatever point you're trying to back up, like you don't necessarily, if you're trying to look at, you know, gender differences or something, then you can just look at papers that focused on that. And therefore you can cut out a lot of the papers that you might not even read and that's fine because it's a literature review and it's not a systematic review, but I hope that makes sense. But do let me know if you've got any more questions. Um Cool. So I'm going to move on to the rebuttal now. Um OK, so um your aims for the rebuttal. Now, once you've done your peer review, you're gonna get your work back. So another group is gonna have a peer review to you and you're gonna get your work back, which you now need to um you know, work on in terms of coming to a final draft and working on on the peer review itself. Um Now your aims here are basically to engage and understand the viewers per perspectives. This is a really important point. Now, I think the, the thing that, you know, a lot of people don't um you know, necessarily understand start of this task is that you need to make sure that you're responding to the reviewers comments. It's fine if you disagree, but you need to openly mention that and you need to, you know, justify why you disagree. You can't just sort of blatantly ignore things. Um And it's not really in your benefit to completely disregard everything that they say, but I'll, I'll come on to that in a minute. You also want to show that you're very professional. Um, you know, there might be things that perhaps they've queried or, um, you know, they might have even said it is sort of incorrect. But, you know, when you're reviewing again, you might notice that actually what you did in the first place was the right thing and that's fine, but make sure that you communicate that, you know, professionally and, you know, um keep things uh sort of simple and finally show that you can respond well to constructive criticism to improve your work. Now, I think the, in terms of the feedback for this task, I think, um some groups were told that they haven't, you know, responded much or they haven't made much changes. So it is important that you take on board their, their, their viewpoints and make sure that you actually make an improvement. If you haven't really changed, your final draft should be a little bit different to your first draft if you haven't made many changes and they can't really assess your ability to respond to someone else's feedback. And I know this can become a little bit difficult if you're in a situation where you genuinely disagree with a lot of the, the um reviewers points. Um But I will discuss how you can still combat that because you, you still need to show that you're kind of taking on board their, their feedback if that makes sense. Um And I'm sure there will definitely be, you know, some things that are are, you know, things that you want to change, it might be that the the thing that they've exactly suggested might not be what something that you agree with. But um the primary issue itself might be something that needs to be fixed. So the main structure for this um you'll start off by thanking reviews for their time. Um So similar to your peer review and you wanna, you know, make sure that you set a positive tone again, keep this nice and brief because it doesn't really add much value. Um You then want to move on to the response to the reviewers comments. So this is the key part and again, a lot of this is, you know, very direct. So you must address each and every comment individually and concisely. Um So clearly state any changes you've made and provide clarification. If no changes are needed, use a numbered or bullet bulleted format corresponding to the reviewers comment. So make sure that every single comment. So if they've made 15 comments, you need 15 answers in your, um, in your rebuttal. Um And the way to do that kind of easily is if they've used numbers, you can kind of just refer to, to the numbers. If not, you can do something very similar to what you did for the, for the um, peer review. So if they said, you know, page number five phrase, you know, each comment as a as an issue, then you can kind of quote that again and then respond underneath. Um So you want to make sure that everything is directly specific, the easier you make your markers life, the more likely they are to mark you out just because they'll just look for, you know, if they understand what's going on, they're more likely to look for things to give you marks and the more difficult you make it, it just becomes more and more um you know, difficult for them to actually get to the end of the paper. And then finally, you want to briefly re mention your appreciation and highlight how their feedback improves the quality of your work again, keep it brief. Um But it must be included, the opening and closing are important. Um Even though you might think that it doesn't act like sort of um value in the sense that it doesn't add any scientific value, but it is very, very important to make sure that you don't skip out um those sections. So um a few tips firstly start positively. So always thank the reviews for that effort. No matter whether you agree or or not, uh with all of their comments, there will definitely be um some things that are useful to you. Um So always thank them to begin with, be clear and concise. So respond directly to each comment without any sort of unnecessary elaboration. If you agree, you can say, um you know, just say, you know, thank thank them for the suggestion and say you've incorporated. Sometimes if it's minor revisions, this doesn't require a lot of waffle. It could literally just be, you know, agreed. Um Thank you, agreed, change made and so on. I think you might have to discuss a little bit more if you're, you know, disagreeing with um a particular comment because you need to be able to justify it and it needs to be convinced to the marker as well as to why you disagreed um acknowledge any misunderstanding. So sometimes in your peer review, so sorry, I should have mentioned this. But in your peer review, you don't necessarily need to always point out um an issue as a as a problem. You might, you know, request a clarification on something. So you might say, um you know, we felt that this was a little bit unclear. Could you please clarify what you and and so on? So that might be something that you can respond to um in your rebuttal. Um you want to be specific, so make sure that you highlight exactly what the changes were made. So exactly the same as you would do in your peer review, use full references um and stay professional as always avoid ignoring feedback. So even if you disagree, you have to mention why you disagree. Um and why you didn't make that change, sometimes it might be, you know, that you decide to leave as it was because you feel like that is the, you know, that that was the initial um sort of write up was perfectly fine as it was. However, a better way of addressing this. So if it does happen, a better way of addressing this would be to kind of suggest um an alternative. So be like, you know, thank them for their suggestion and explain why you disagree. So explain why you kind of don't think that you're gonna go with what they've suggested, but perhaps you can do a little bit more searching and find something different. Um And you might alter it and then be like, you know, so you've kind of responded to, to their feedback, you, but you might not necessarily need to take, take on something that you don't think is inherently correct if that makes sense. Um Remember disagreeing with almost all the corrections is definitely not gonna work in your favor. So always be open to trying, you know, incorporate as much feedback as possible. Um But obviously not at the cost of writing incorrect things. So if those kind of situations come up, still think about how you can improve it further. Another thing I should point out here is, um, I don't know if it's the same for all, but we were told that um, you're not allowed to add random things into your final draft as in you can only make changes according to um the peer review. Um But if something, you know, you can't just add in a section or take something out or, you know, something like that, it has to be kind of responding to the peer review because that's what they're testing you. So bear that in mind as well. Um The other thing is remember that you, you shouldn't, you shouldn't really be agreeing with everything they say unless you actually do agree with it if you do. No, no, that's perfectly fine. Um But if you don't, if you genuinely disagree, then make sure that you thank them. Um And you, you've kind of got three steps, you need to thank them, you need to discuss why you disagree and you need to suggest what, what you, what change you're suggesting instead. So what change you've made and why. Um And perhaps that might bounce off so they might have brought up a relevant point, but they might not have suggested the right thing to you if that makes sense. Um cool. So these are some examples. So for example, you know, we appreciated the clinical picture of a patient with Crohn's disease in the introduction. Despite this more emphasis on the pathophysiology is required in order to allow the author to relate to the mechanism of action of each drug back to the disease pathogenesis. So the response to that could be, you know, this has been updated to enhance the reader's understanding to be fair. I'd say even this is quite roughly and sometimes you might, you might make this more concise. Um But if you're kind of agreeing with something and it's kind of, you know, straightforward and simple, then, you know, a, a line or, or two is perfectly fine. So you want to remember that you need to fit in every single point. Um And you wanna save more words for the ones where you're kind of disagreeing or suggesting something new or making a change as opposed to ones where you've just, you know, directly taken, what, what they've said that's perfectly fine. Um You can kind of keep that in simple um that alters uh to, you know, in line with the purpose of an abstract, the conclusion summarize the overall trend in the studies, not implying that all studies discussed directly compared drugs to the placebo uh as such, no changes were made. So it's fine to make no changes. But here you need to clearly justify why you didn't make that change Um Here, I think the examples have been quite generic um in the sense that they've been overall points. Um But a lot of your actual peer review will, um, pick up ones that are kind of like a specific paper or sub section and so on. So, um you do want to focus on that to, um, and finally, with the peer review, um another important thing to remember is that you don't always have to, um, discuss things that you think are wrong and just point them out and leave it actually to do, you know, even better, a good way would be to actually suggest what they can do. So, for example, you might have found that, um, they've, you know, tried to establish a point and they've used a paper that kind of doesn't quite make that point. So it's, it's on that topic and it's in that direction, but they've kind of made a jump to reach that conclusion. And if you pick up on that, it's fine to, to sort of mention it. But an even better way would be to actually look into a literature and see if you can find a better paper. It is quite, you know, time consuming and effort. But when you can do it, when you can do it well, so don't just suggest something for the sake of it. But if you genuinely find a better paper, um, doing that will a actually help them out as well with their final draft, but also b it will look really good um for your peer review. So remember that the peer review exercise, it's not really, it's not fault finding, actually you'll do better if you find ways of improving it as well. So rather than just saying, what is the issue trying to say, you know, how you would solve it, um is kind of what you want, you want to aim with that. Um Cool uh Any questions? No. All right then. So that does bring us to the end of the talk. Um So um thank you guys for listening, just wondering if you guys have any questions um then do put them in the chat and I will go through them if you've got any other questions as well, feel free to drop me an email. Um And I'm happy to go through them too. Uh If you selectively include papers, how would you write this in a third shot diagram when describe such strategy? So, um if you're referring to more like prisma flow chart diagrams, um As far as I know, um that isn't something that is required for I see for um because as I'm saying, it's not really a systematic review, it's more of a literature review. Um So you don't need to discuss which papers you included and how you, you, you went about it. That's more something you would do for a systematic review. Um So try, try and be careful on that as far as I know, I think all of the medical BSE S have the same viewpoint on that. But, you know, don't take my word for that. So if you've been told otherwise, if you, if you've been told that you do need, um, sort of more like a systematic review, then then go with it. I hope that answers your question. Um, does anyone else have any questions at all? Ok. So feel free to email me as well if you've got any questions, um, that pop up sort of your mind later on, I will hang on for a bit. So, um, if you've got any questions, keep putting them in the chat and I will go through them. Um, but otherwise, best of luck guys with your submissions. Um And I hope the rest of ICA four goes well for you guys.