Computer generated transcript

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

It's also cold. The red button comes on. Okay, Perfect. So it's red now, which means that it's alive. So the talks being recorded from this point, I'm just going to send a message in the charts that people can feel free to ask questions. How many people do you think you're coming? Last time I checked around 20 people registered prior to the talk, and it's usually slightly more than the number that have registered. Okay, Okay, cool. Let's see how many people are here. There's a few. I'm just going to say chat, and then I'll introduce you, and then we can start. I can just see that people are joining right now, so that's good. Sure, sure. Mhm. Yes. Uh huh. Yeah. Okay. I think there's, like, a fair few people. I mean, we'll start and people will probably start rolling in. As the talk goes on, people tend to join about five minutes past. I've noticed. All right, so we'll make a start. So hello, everyone. I hope you had a wonderful New Year's and festive period. Um, it's lovely to see you all back for I c a four. Um, and your first submission is the 18th of January. So that is Wednesday at 10. AM And I think that's for most of us, if not all of us. And Catarina is here to take you through all of that. Um, and she did the surgical design, tech and innovation BSC. So if you have any specific questions to do with that, you're more than welcome to ask them. Please do use the chat and ask as many questions as you feel. The need to Katherine is quite help helpful, and we'll just answer all of them. Okay. Cool. Um, so taking away Katarina, and I'll just be online, just in case you need anything. Okay. Thank you. Um, welcome, everyone to the I c. A four talk. Just a little disclaimer. Obviously, this is my personal view and opinion on I see for, um, I've had another look at, like, the criteria and, uh, the prompt for this assignment just to remind myself, um, but do take your like, module leads advice over mine. So, like, please don't take my word for everything, but hopefully this can apply to all the bs. CS, uh, science bs CS, and you can find something useful. So um, as we said, I did the surgery. BSC, Um, I actually quite liked. I see for, um I liked my group. I think that's quite important as well. And for context. We got, um, 76 in our first submission, and then we did a bit lower for our, um, review, peer review. And then our final mark was around 73.5. So just for you guys to know, I'm happy to share that. Okay, So, uh, the talk is basically gonna cover a bit of the first submission just for a recap. I'm gonna go through it as briefly as I can, because I know you've done most of it, and you're probably just finishing your right up, and then we'll talk a bit about cover letter peer review and the rebuttal as well, and feel free to pop some questions in the chat. If I see them, um, I'll answer them right away. If I think it'll be better to answer at the end, then I'll just leave it to the end. Um, and if I haven't answered your question, please just resubmit it. Um, that's perfectly fine. So just Oh, and also the slides are taken from previous talks. I've just added them a little bit. So credit to those people as well. Um Okay, So this is your timeline. I hope I got it right. Um, first draft is due in two days. Uh, and then you've got a bit of a short period for your peer review. This is literally just a week, and you kind of have to work on it every day. Uh, then you've got your revision and rebuttal and your i c a five as well. Just a piece of advice. What? Since you've got, like, a week and a half for your revision Rebuttal? Uh, if you're not, depending on how far along you are with your I say five, you might need a bit more time to finish it before submission. So what we did, we ended up just like taking these first two days or one of the two days 25th and 26 to work by ourselves on r I C five. So if your group is happy with that, just make sure you guys communicate and you take some time to finish that submission so that you can fully focus on your final submission because I know that both of them happening at the same time was quite stressful. I remember. Okay, so let's get to it. Uh, this is the marks. I'm sure you're You guys are all over this because your imperial students, But main point is fresh submission, the most important one of all. But do not underestimate the other three. Because, as I mentioned, with my grades in particular, it can bring your grade down or up. So if you actually put in some work with these, you might even boost your final mark. Okay? So as most of you should know, this is a narrative review, not a literature review. Nor should you aim to be doing a systematic literature review because you've not got the time. I know some people in my BSC wanted to attempt that Don't do it. It's just it's not worth it. Um, and I don't think that's what they want from you at all. So, uh, this is just a nice table for your reference. The main difference is to highlight is in a narrative review, you're not required to go through the extensive kind of Prisma criteria. Uh, or cock ring criteria of a systematic review, so you don't have to go through all the steps. Nor do you have to present all of those steps systematically in your right up. Um, so that's one of the biggest differences. And also what they really highlight with I C four is they want to see you perform like, critical appraisal and be able to discuss evidence in seminal articles and primary um, research articles. So you're not meant to be looking at other reviews or meta analyses are meant to be looking at primary research. Um, and that's that's basically the main emphasis. Um, analysis can occur. Ad hoc. Um, so you can as you were going through your papers, which I'm sure many of you did, you might have noticed you wanted to focus on another outcome or another specific point that you noticed after reading a few papers. And that's perfectly fine, like you can change it as you go. Um, it's not like predefined as in systematic reviews. And just make sure you note down your logical like your logic for research so that you can present it in your methods. After and again, the, um, different narrative reviews like if another group were to do your review, they might come up with a different conclusion. Because although you're using kind of objective methods to, um, go through your papers so you know, critical appraisal and all of that wonderful stuff you've been learning. Um, it is also using your own scientific opinion to kind of talk about them and compare contrast. Draw out, um, interesting points you notice or interesting controversies or gaps. Um, and really try to either fill these or, um, discuss what needs to be changed or what can be changed. Um, and that's that's kind of what you're trying to do. So, you know, in a month or so if someone were to do the same thing, they might come up with a different, um, conclusion to you, and that's perfectly fine. Okay, Hope that's clear. This is basically the steps of a comprehensive search strategy. Hopefully, you guys were introduced to this in your bs. CS, uh, and you had at least a vague idea of what you were doing. Um, I know in my BSC they were, like, quite clear on on how to do a search. And if not, um I hope they signposted you to the librarian's and the library services because they're actually quite useful. I know you might not think so, but, um, we did end up using, um, using them during our search strategy. Um, I'll just quickly go through all the steps, but again, might be a bit repetitive. I just want to make sure you guys didn't miss out anything before you submit your first draft. So obviously Step one is plan. Uh, you have quite like a tight timeline. So hopefully you guys set up a schedule for yourselves for your group, whether you want to do everything together, whether you split up some tasks. Um, really. Whatever works best for you, but it's from now on. If you didn't like, it's really important to set yourself some deadlines because you do not want things to build up. You want to have time to do multiple read throughs and multiple drafts. Um, so that actually comes out reading quite well and publication ready as they like to say, um, and, you know, make yourselves a realistic timeframe. Most of all scope the literature. So this is, um sometimes they give you certain bs CS give you like a topic. Some of them might give you starting paper. Some of them might give you an actual question. I know it can be very different between, um the BS CS, But basically, scoping the literature is having just a quick google of like, your question or, um, your topic and usually just go through the first few papers that come up or use Google Scholar or Pub Med or whatever. Uh, and just have a look. See, You know what kind of themes come up frequently read their discussion's read the limitations. Um, and that's usually where you find, uh, maybe, um, a more narrow subject area that you want to focus on. And also just have a look at how many papers are coming up like, Is this a really popular topic that has been done over and over again? And it's going to be redundant if you do a narrative review on this, Or does this actually have potential for a good discussion? You know, be smart about like what you choose to do it on. Um, engage. What? What type of articles are out there? Is it just our CTS Are there no. Are CTS um, etcetera, etcetera. Okay, Part three. Define your question slash title. You don't You don't need to have. Like, it's not like a hypothesis type of thing is just kind of to guide you on what you're looking at and what to use for your search. So hopefully you guys had an idea of your population. Um, your intervention, whether it be a drug or a type of surgery or a type of treatment therapy. Um, anything like that comparison. Maybe you had one. Maybe you didn't, um, are CTS often do. But if you only have retrospective studies, then there won't be a comparison. Uh, and then your outcomes, Like what? What will you be discussing? What will be what will you be looking at in terms of results? Is it quantitative? Is it, um, are you looking at risk factors? Prognostic factors, Selection of patient's, uh, methodologies protocols, whatever it is that you, um, are going to basically discuss, um, in your narrative review and study type as well. If you wanted to include that in your review, uh, then you would have established your criteria. This can be done before, during and after your search. Um, no one's going to blame you if you know you're excluding papers and you're like, what do I attribute this exclusion to? Just make sure you can justify it, but it doesn't have to be, uh, set before you do the search. Um, and make sure your papers meet these requirements while you're doing it. Um, again, it's not as extensive as a systematic review. Here. You have. Um, just a sample question that I'm gonna use for, um, the following examples and basically, your inclusion criteria is all these characteristics. So you're gonna want, uh, patient's with a stemi. You're gonna want intervention, thrombolisis. Uh, you're gonna compare them maybe with a control group. And your outcome is hospital mortality. Okay, so that's just an example of what inclusion criteria might look like you might want. Well, you do want a timeframe, so make sure you, you know, chose your studies between this year and another year. 5, 10 years is usually what's recommended. This is so you don't get just an extremely large number of insignificant articles. Um, and language, obviously, papers that have been written in English or properly translated to English do not make your lives difficult. Uh, and this is what the criteria might look like again. Exclusion is usually, um, what you find after you've done your search or maybe things that you've noticed, um, pop up in studies that make it unable for you. Um, like, you're not able to use them in your paper. Uh, for example, one that we used was if the study had less than 10 patient's that way. You know, we just automatically excluded papers that we knew we're gonna have, um just a really small sample size, which would make it difficult to discuss the results. And we just spared ourselves that trouble. Uh, so that's something that you might want to do again. Whatever you think fits with your subject area, then your databases hopefully use more than one. Um, I think they've probably recommended that to you. And we did do our search with the librarian. Uh, just to kind of save us some trouble. Basically, uh, it was a call. They just went through the question with us and set up all the terms, and then we just copy pasted them into the search engine, which was great. Uh, but also you can most definitely do this yourself. So don't worry. Then you're just gonna select. Hopefully you selected your terms and all their synonyms. Mesh terms, different spellings, etcetera, etcetera. You've got all your little keys, um, and symbols that you can use. I'm not gonna go over that because I think we're past that at this point. Uh, and make sure you know how to use or an end And the search engine, for example, Here, if you want a narrator in your search, you're combining elements. So you're using. And if you want to expand your search, you're adding elements with your okay. So usually you put all the synonyms of a certain component. For example, for your intervention. Combine them all with your and then you combine all of the components. So patient's intervention, um, an outcome with and and it should come down to a reasonable number 400 is still a bit too high. But anyways, you keep going until you have a satisfactory number. Then you've got your screening. Um, I recommend using a software we use covid ins, which was really nice, helps you screen really fast and like, cuts out duplicates for you I think mentally or ref works can do the same thing for you. Um, and multiple people can be working on it. So export your files, go over your abstracts, Go over your title's. Um, make sure you are recording how many you exclude and why. Okay, this is if you're going to do a Prisma flow chart or not, you need to record like what you've taken out and why. Um, you are, uh, probably four people in a group. So make sure to people have gone over the, um, screening process. Um, again, make sure if it's the criteria and this is an example of my methodology paragraph so it can be longer than this. Um, I think we made it quite short because we were very tight onwards. But I know some of you, um, might have some doubts about how much you need to expand. Uh, but I think this was honestly enough. So I've just highlighted the important bits. So as you can see, the PICO is included. We've stated the databases when the search was done. How many articles? Um came out in the first search. An overview of the terms and also the logic of our search. Okay, So, criteria. How did you remove duplicates? Title's abstracts. Um, where did you screen them? So you have to cite the software used. And then how many final articles you obtained? Okay. And this is an example of our prisma flow chart as well. Um, I kind of recommend that you do this if you want, because it's a really nice way to, um, include your exclusion criteria and just let the reader kind of see your process and not have to write about it and lose words. So this can be one of your figures, for sure. I think you can make it online, or you can make it in a power point. Um, slide. Uh, just make sure you you're using the correct terminology. So first screen is usually duplicates, and then you've got your abstracts and title's, and then you assess for eligibility. So this is where you go over the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and in your prisma flow chart, you need to cite the reasons for each exclusion. Okay, so that's why I said remember why you took out a paper and then the final ones Okay, nice. This is just top tips. So use Peco's to help with your concept. If, um if you think you're still missing a seminal article or you've not really found it, the references are usually a really nice place to look for articles. So if you found a nice review on your topic, go through all of those citations and see if you find something nice. Scopus can also be used. Um, and yeah. So the final number of articles that you end up mentioning in your review is up to you. Um, again, you're doing the screening. You know why you want to exclude papers? Um, and even if you've got, like, 20 in your final eligible list, you don't necessarily need to address those 20 extensively in the text. Um, I think you've not got enough words to appraise to properly appraise 20 papers. Along with you know, all the other parts of introduction discussion, etcetera, etcetera. So make sure you pick the best ones quote unquote or whichever ones You think, um, we'll give you more to talk about, uh, which ones have the highest impact and those are the kind of the ones you want to develop. A bit more on and right up tips. So this is kind of the stage you're at. I just wrote down some of my thoughts, Um, and what I think you might want to focus on. So remember that CSD is a critical summary. You don't need to address every single paper. As I've said, Uh, obviously you can quote like if you're making a point or if you're talking about like, you know, some, like a few studies had selection bias, You can obviously site those. That's fine, but you don't need to, like mention five different sentences about each selection bias in each paper if that makes sense, um, the systematic review rules don't apply to your methodology, but remember, it needs to be detailed enough that the markers can understand your logic, what terms you used and what your criteria was. So that's very important. And the key point of the CST, which is highlighted in like the marking criteria, is that you're able to synthesize evidence and you're able to have in depth critical appraisal. So all of those things that you've been learning in, like journal clubs and all the past submissions this is the time to use it. The actual main bulk of your right up should be this. Okay. And that's going to lead you to having, um, objective conclusions and in part, your opinion as well about strengths, limitations or any other relevant thing about your subject area. Okay. And, um, I just want to highlight if you go to the criteria. The I don't know what it's called, like outstanding, which is, like 93 to 100 or whatever they call that section, which is impossible. Um, it only says possibly novel insights, and I want to stress that it says possibly novel. You do not have to find the cure for cancer in your narrative review, and no one is expecting you to. Okay, It's really about how, like, how much you can get into the subject area and showcase that you understand what the current consensus is and what is lacking. What is, um, maybe a controversial topic? What is you know? Is this treatment better? Is this treatment worse? Um, is this drug having too many side effects? Whatever it may be, you buy reading all those papers, and because you're in a group, it's even better because you've got four minds working on this. You should know enough about the subject area by the time you're writing your draft that you can comfortably bridge any gaps or highlight any kind of things that you found and they don't necessarily have to be novel. It could be something that's already been stated in one of the papers you read, but you're just expanding on it because now you've read all of the papers and you can understand maybe why it's happening or what should be changed about it. Okay, don't worry about sounding flashy and novel. If you have found something novel by all means, that's great. But it's not, um, necessary. Okay, to get top marks structure of your CST again, this can be you might have different guidance. I'm not really sure about the other bs. CS, um, for mine. They really stressed, um, that we had to have a good appraisal of a few select papers. I'm not sure if it's the same for this year, so we focused on that in our structure. Okay, um but for everyone, make sure it flows, and this can only be done if you read it out loud. to someone. So read it to each other, make sure it's engaging. Okay, don't go on and on. Don't have run on sentences. Um, make sure. Um, I'm just trying to think of things that you can do in two days, but make sure your writing style is the same. Okay, When you've got four people writing a paper, it can actually sound really weird. Um, and we did like we all wrote our separate, like, paragraphs or sections. And then when we got together, we realized that everyone had, like, a very different writing style, And then some people were using active voice, and people were using passive voice, so make sure everything fits Okay, Even if one single person has to go in and make it sound homogeneous, please do that. That's that's very important. And then your figures again, flow chart. Um, any kind of summary tables you want. Like if depending on the number of, um, papers you have, it might be a really long table or a really short table. Um, maybe just something visual that the reader can reference to, Um and but I don't remember them really asking for any particular figures. So whatever you think you want to highlight. Maybe maybe a table summarizing the outcomes that you found, Um, and your tone of appraisal. So generally, you know, you want to highlight strengths and limitations, um, of the papers. So make sure you're not just going on and on about, um, bad things. Make sure you're also highlighting what's been well done in the field and, um, positive about the papers. Um, because that kind of shows that you're having a balanced analysis. Okay, Um, in terms of results and discussion, I think it's hard to draw a line of what you want. Like, what's the limit to what you can squeeze into results of what you can put in discussion, and that's kind of up to your group. And what you think sounds good when you're reading the paper. Uh, but honestly, for us, we basically anything that we were stating and that we were introducing needs to be in results. Okay, that includes your critical appraisal and your analysis of the research. Okay, so that includes You know, if you found this study and it presented this result and it had a small sample size, um, it used a different protocol to that study, whatever. Whatever. That's all results. Okay, All of your bulk of evidence is going to be in your results because that's that's the main reason you're writing this narrative review. Your discussion is, um, should I It's usually smaller actually than the results. And this is kind of your opportunity to highlight your major findings so you don't have to bring in everything to your discussion. Okay? Choose whatever you think, um, has a higher impact or is a better point to, um, talk about. And basically your discussion is What did you find? Why do you think it's you know, this happened the way it did or why do you think this is a positive or a negative? How is it influencing the field? How is it influencing the research or the past studies or the past guidelines? Um, and how do you justify this finding? Slash? Do you have any improvements or suggestions for the future? Okay, so that's that's kind of you're not really presenting anything new. You're if anything, you're adding information from the outside, so you might want to cite other articles. You might want to cite guidelines. You might want to cite theories. Okay, So if there's anything that you think fits in with this point or anything that might justify it, you can bring that in, and you can cite it. Um, so, yeah, synthesis, which is my favorite word. But just make sure you're not bringing new evidence or new kind of discussion points, um, that have not been presented in the results. Okay, so it should be, like, a reference of, like, as shown in the results, this and this and this because, or, um, it might be justified to to this and this and this future studies can focus on this and this And this, um, you've all written discussion's, but I think the main point is in your results. Okay. And your discussion is just a chance to bring all of that together then, um, you also want to include some limitations of your own review. This is for literature Review. This is not a systematic review need to. Okay, It's confusing, because literature review can also sound like systematic literature review. But this is called a narrative literature review. Uh, and limitations don't go on and on and on. Doesn't need to be a huge paragraph. Just a few points about what you think, Um, limited your own narrative review and then obviously your conclusion. Okay, I know this may be a bit confusing, but just make sure you're not putting new things in your discussion. That's the main bit. Okay. And this is a sample paragraph from my review. This was one of our results. Paragraph. So here is basically an example of an in depth appraisal of a study. So this entire paragraph is about a single study that we thought was worthy of a big paragraph. Um, I don't expect you to understand what it's talking about, but basically, we introduced probably three points that were, um, strengths and three points that were a limitation to the study. And you can see we kind of, um, explain why it's a strength or why it's a limitation. But we don't go into trying to justify its impact on the wider field. Okay, so it's particular to the study, but we're not discussing this in context of the field. Does that make sense? That would come in our discussion bit. Okay, Um, I'm happy to move on. Unless you guys want to read the paragraph. Somebody No. Okay. I'm sure Rio will share the slides with you as well. Okay, so moving on to your future submissions cover letter. Um, actually, I think this is going in your first submission, but basically, your cover letter is not marked. Okay? You're not meant to spend much time on it at all. It's more of a formality of like, they kind of want you to practice what you would do in real life. So just make sure you you can have a quick google of a cover letter. There's a pretty standard, um, kind of template for every cover letter. So address your edit. Er, um, and you put in your manuscript title and the name of the journal if they've given you one. If not, then you can admit that part. Um, and state, obviously that your paper has not been previously published and is not currently under consideration. That's just a formality as well. And then don't just paste your abstract, make a new paragraph. You can copy some sentences from your abstract. That's fine. But just a brief description of what you've reported in your narrative review and why you think it deserves a narrative review, and it deserves a place in the journal, so just quickly justify, um, why you're doing it. OK, so whether it be because there's a controversy or whether it be because it's a new treatment and you, you know, you think it's it's worth to, um, have a quick review on it or whatever it may be, Uh, it's probably already written in your introduction, so just just have a look. It doesn't need to be lengthy at all. Um, I would say, like, four or five sentences and then, um, conflict of interest. So just state they're on any. And then, um, just sign it with the names of your group members. Okay, so that's should all fit in one page. Um, and I wouldn't I really wouldn't stress about it. Okay. Moving on to the peer review. Um, I think this was, uh, quite difficult, because I think none of us had really engaged in a proper peer review. Like, you've we've all had, you know, activities where we had to, um, mark someone else or give feedback. But this is kind of entirely different because it's in a formal setting. And you you can easily maybe point out, um, gaps in someone's paper or mistakes, but you need to address it in a pure review kind of way. So I'm just going to quickly go through what you're expected to do in your peer review, and I'm not sure how much guidance your B s C has given you. But again, um, Google is your best friend. Just have a quick Google. There's loads of, like, websites that, um, give you a sample or just discuss what you should include or not include, uh, if you're having a bit of trouble. Um, this quote was here from the previous presenter, but I actually think it pretty much encapsulates what you need to do in a peer review. So review for others as you as you would have others review for you. Okay, this keep this in mind because you need to, um, really be constructive in your review and not kind of point out, um, things that, if changed, will not really have an impact in the paper. So make sure you're bringing out good points constructive points, um, points that you can justify, um and that means you need to spend a bit of time and understand a bit of the subject area that you're marking as well. Okay, um, so in your groups, whether you want to split this or do it all together, that's fine. But I think everyone should have a read of the other groups paper. Um, just quickly read it through, um, and try and have a general overview of the quality of the paper. And it's nice if you want to put it in a document. And you guys just, like, insert comments along the way. Um, so you don't forget something that you find. Um, and there's this thing about publishable or non publishable. I don't think in the BSC you're meant to go that far. Like, I think you don't want to get into the spot of, like, having to justify why paper isn't, um, publishable at all. So I don't think, um, that's really applicable to be a C. But it does happen in real life. Okay. And then you go into your second reading. Um, we did this, um, I think in person, and we all kind of went through the paper together, uh, and read each paragraph like a few times to both check. You know, Does it make sense? Does it flow? And also, you kind of have to validate, um, the statements that the other group has made, not every statement, but, you know, you might want to check the references, and you might want to check, you know, why are they why are they saying that this is, um, has an advantage over that. Like, let me check what the paper actually says. Is it an advantage, or is it poor quality research? And you can't really make that statement like, is it? Overstating things like that. Um, so that's gonna take you a few more time. Um, once you've done that and you've managed to kind of collect a few things that you want to address, uh, you're gonna have to split them into major and minor points, which I'll go over in a second. Uh, and the structure of your review. Um, you might have already a structure that they've given you, but if you don't, um, I'll go over that as well. Okay. And here, just some guidance questions. So in the group's abstract and introduction is the need for the research clearly identified um Are there methods appropriate and logical? Like, have they Have they shown you their exclusion and inclusion criteria? Um, have they stated what databases? They searched? All those things you can comment on, um are the results clear and logical? Are they justified by data? So are they citing their points? Are they citing, um, their evidence. Okay, um, and figures as well, if if they're relevant, um, conclusion and discussion, you know, overstated, understated. That's a big thing. Um, does it follow from the data? Are they introducing new new points and new terms that you've not seen before? Um, and, um, overall structure and flow as well can be commented on, So this is examples of major and minor points. So a major point is, um, usually, uh, something that has a higher impact on the overall quality of the paper. And, um, we'll probably take a bit longer to be fixed. Okay. So when you're writing your peer review, uh, don't just give them a huge list of major points, because one that's not nice. And two, you will be marked down for it. Okay, Try and keep a balance between major and minor points. Um and make it whatever you want the other group to kind of improve upon. Make sure you describe your point well enough that they can actually make a change. And they understand why you're saying what you're saying because you're being You're essentially being marked on the quality of your peer review as well. Okay, not just that you're able to to find mistakes, but how well, you can communicate them to the group. Okay, um, so, for example, major references. So if there's a seminal paper that they have not spoken about and it fits within their inclusion criteria, you need to point that out. Um, you might not want to go to the extent of finding that paper that's up to you. Um, objectives not clearly stated, uh, methodology Not clear reproducible. I would say reproducible is a bit of a stick, you one, because this is not a systematic review, obviously. But if it's not clear enough, then you can definitely point that out if they've got errors in their data. Um, if they've got big discrepancies or contradictions, so if you know they're putting one plus one equals three, then you, um, might want to point that out to them as well. Um, or inappropriate conclusions If you think, um, they don't fit with the evidence they've presented. I think that's also worthy of making a point. Um, you don't need to find all of these, like, don't be hunting for, um, a major point. They like they will just pop out to you. Um, once you read the paper a few times. Um, minor points include, like, minor references that they've missed. Um, technical clarifications. So again, um, as you probably know, papers should be written for a scientific audience. Okay, It's not for a lay audience, but within the scientific community, not everyone will be an expert in your field. Although you might feel like one. Once you've, uh, written this first draft, it's easy to miss technical terms or definitions that you take for granted now that you know what it is. Uh, but if you've got like, um, a very niche unit or, um, a niche Um uh, technical term. Please take the time to just write a quick sentence on it, or define it in your introduction or wherever you talk about it. Um, because that might just, uh, that means that. You know, whoever is peer reviewing you is not going to point that out. Um, which is nice. Okay. Um mm. Okay. I'll get Jordan. I'll get back to that. Let me just finish this slide data presentation. Um, P values, etcetera, uh, figure legends, things like that. If there's small mistakes, that's a minor point. And then you've got your type O spelling grammar and phrasing again. Don't go overboard on this if there's a clear mistake pointed out. But, like stylistic, um, ideas and things like that, you can get a bit carried away. Um, Jordan asks. Are we sure this is correct for lit review? We were told specifically not to include methods, prisma diagrams or exclusion criteria for specific papers. Um, okay, So my what we were told in my year was that it was a bit up to us how kind of in depth we wanted to go. So if you've been told specifically not to include those things, that's perfectly fine again. Take the word of your module Leads for it. Um, we use the Prisma diagram for clarity and because we weren't really using other figures, um, we thought it would just be a nice way to summarize, um, our methodology. But you do absolutely do not have to. Um, I yeah, I'm not sure if you're not. If you've been told that, then that's fine. Uh, but I think there shouldn't be a problem in just having a quick summary of your methodology. Um, again, Doesn't have to be extensive. Um, hopefully that answers your question. If anyone else has been told the same thing, then by all means, go by that, Um, But this is I'm just going from what, um, what we were doing last year. Okay. Okay, good. Please write something else if you are still confused. Okay, So the structure of your peer review So you've got all your nice points, okay? And you've got, um, your major and your minor revisions. Uh, so you basically the easiest way is just to write, Not, like, write them down numbered. Um, And you, um, for each point, you wanna I think for our BSC they had, um, line numbers so that you could address the line number of the mistake. Um, or you can, um, site the paragraph so you can be like in introduction paragraph too. Or what? Whatever they've kind of indicated you to do, Um, that's so you should kind of, um, identify where the mistake is, because then otherwise no one's going to find it. Okay, so, introduction. You, um thank the authors for their submission. This is all pleasantries, but it has to be done. Uh, and then your you say, you know, we recommend this, um, this narrative review for submission for publication granted that major revisions are made or suggestion suggested revisions are made. Um, so, yeah, most of you will go for publishable. I don't think I don't think you'll go for not publishable. Um, and then you go on to describe your revisions. Uh, but importantly. And this goes back to review for others. As you'd like to review for you, you want to give, um, a brief description and strength in your peer review? This is kind of to balance out with your revision remarks, but, um, you know, give them a pat on the back and highlight, you know, 3 to 4 strengths of their study. Uh, before you go into your revisions. Okay. Uh, and then, um, conclusion. I'm not sure we had a conclusion. Um and then any references that you used. So if you're, you know, telling them about a seminal article, you have to reference it. If you're, um, telling them that they've, you know, made a contradictory remark. You need to cite the paper that they're contradicting stuff like that. Okay, uh, peer reviewed tips, so be polite, concise and clear. You don't want to drag on like revision remarks are quite brief sentences. And then usually in the major remarks you want to justify your, um, point, of course, but make sure it's constructive. So double check all your language, don't use negative connotation, so fail to mistakenly forgot, try to replace those with, uh, the author's might like to consider or might consider. Or please consider in light of this and this and this, um, we made the mistake of being slightly to negative in a review, and it did backfire. So don't do that. Um, I think more than your language and you know how many points you have or, um, how well you can write the peer review. They also want to look at the quality of your remarks. So don't make redundant, redundant suggestions. Um, don't over analyse small things like typos and, um, uh, like mistakes and legends, like focus on good quality feedback. Okay, that they can actively act like, actively change in their review. Because that's what you would want someone to do for you, Uh, when you receive your peer review. Okay, Uh, make sure to highlight the strengths again. Don't forget that. And don't overdo it. Any questions on peer review? Or if you'd like to for me to go over any other point? No. Okay. Nice again. This can be done. If you properly read the paper and go over it slowly, you'll probably come up with all your points. Um, quite quickly. Okay. Your rebuttal? Um, I think so. There's 22 parts of this, right? You've got your written rebuttal. So this is where you answer the comments from your reviewers, and then you've got your, um, reviewed draft your final submission where you make the changes slash not make the changes. Um, for us, I think it was recommended that you change any changes you make you highlight and red in your paper. And then a separate document for the rebuttal where you address kind of point by point. Um, And in your answers, um, you're gonna copy the comment and add your reply below whether you accept or you reject their comment. Okay. Um, so, firstly, you thank your reviewer for their comments. Uh, you don't need to do this for every point. Um, some people do. I think it just sounds repetitive. Uh, but again, pleasantries. Um, they kind of love that in scientific world. Um, and you address, uh, majors and minors. Okay. So same kind of structure as the review, Uh, you if you wanna accept, um, a comment or a point. Um, you're gonna highlight what changes you've made in your manuscript. So, um, you can either copy in the segment that you changed, Um, Or if it's not something written, then you can say, you know, this was edited to this and this and this, um, or we've included this citation for reference now, something like that. Okay, uh, if you disagree with a comment, you need to provide justification again in a polite tone. So if someone has said he has reviewed your paper and said, um, actually, you know, we don't think that, um, this, um this outcome was significant enough for you to state, um that it's better than the other, Um, blah, blah, blah because of this. But you read it. You go back to your paper, and you actually think you've justified it well enough. And you've actually cited five articles to back this. Um, and you don't You're not quite sure where they've pointed it out. Um, and you want to keep it? You That's perfectly fine. As long as you can explain. You know, you might have to bring in some references in your answer and just politely say, um, you know, we thank the reviewer for the comments. Uh, but, um, having a revised paragraph for, um, we've noted that are statement is backed up is backed by, uh, five different citations, Which all, um, uh, states this positive fighting. Um, therefore, uh, we've not revised this paragraph. Whatever. Like, just make it sound nice. Um, it's okay to reject a comment. Okay, if you truly believe, it doesn't make sense, and sometimes they don't. Um and that's what people might think about your comments, So it depends. Uh, but I would say try and act on most of them. Um, and if it does come up that you don't agree with it again. Find to reject it. Um, this is an example. Um, again. So, um, here is a comment on someone's introduction, so, you know, take note of how they've written this. So we appreciate the clinical picture of a patient in the introduction. Despite this, more emphasis is required to allow the author to relate the mechanism of Axion back to the disease. Pathogenesis. So although there, you know, telling people Hey, this needs to be changed. It's not clear enough. You kind of read it as a very nice comment. So that's how you want your peer review to sound. Okay? And then the reply this has been, um obviously, they thanked the reader above, So this has been updated to enhance the reader's understanding. Blah, blah, blah. And then after this, you would paste the segment you've changed. Okay, Um or not. I'm not sure what your module module leads Want You might want to ask them. I'm sure they'll give you a specific answer to that. But for us, we did again here. In addition with the abstract results section, the notion that all licensed biologics were directly compared to placebo is not universally true, as evidenced by, um, etcetera, etcetera Study in the diamond trial. So this comment is pointing out, um, and overstated um, an overstated, uh, point in someone's review. Uh, and that's actually a very nice way to to put it. And obviously they've backed it with a reference and evidence as to why it's not universally true. And in the end, in the answer, they've actually rejected the comment. And sometimes you like you can reject a comment and make a reference to, um the article or the citation involved. Or if the comment is, um, about maybe a statement, um, in your discussion and they say it doesn't really relate. You can always reference your own paper and reference your abstract or your aim, um, or another segment in your paper to back that. So you know, here they said, they've reminded the reviewer that the purpose of their abstract was to summarize an overall trend. Um, and therefore they're not implying that all studies discussed directly compared drugs to a placebo. As such, no changes were made. Um, so they didn't need to reference the study. They just simply, um, re emphasized what the actual purpose of the narrative review was. Because sometimes when people review your paper, um, they don't really keep the introduction in mind. So it might seem like you're making, um, odd statements. Um, if they don't have your aims in mind. Okay. So just, um, when you're answering, Actually, if you know what you were writing about, and if you know what your purpose was, you might be just be able to get away with that, um, again, up to you. If if you did think it was a valid comment, then more than welcome to change it. Okay, that was an hour. Do you guys have any questions or do you want me to go over any other segment again? Feel free to I don't know if you're gonna and mute or type in chat. I hope that wasn't too fast or too slow. Um, and I know that there's, like, a bit of confusion regarding systematic review. Our literature review. Um I think some groups do literature reviews, Isn't it? Like social or public health? Does a literature review? I'm not sure, but this should. Aside from methodology, everything else should apply to everyone okay. No questions. I'll just leave this for, like, 30 seconds or so. Just in case anyone asks any questions, I was going to ask you, um, in terms of the peer review, how do you finish? Like, how do you end it? Because I don't have a problem starting and kind of right in the middle bit. But how would you end it? Do you know what? Let me just, um would you be like, overall? That was okay. Let me go to my peer review and see how I ended it. Um, I think, honestly, introduction is more important than the ending, but I know it's mhm. So just so you Yeah. Just goes to show. I'm just reading it now. We actually did not even talk about strength. So, guys, make sure you do that because I think that's why we got marked down. Um, so we ended it with No, we ended on the minor point. And then word count and then references. Um, I think you can if you want to. Quite right. A quick sentence of like, uh, we thank the authors for their submission. Like you've already said in the beginning. Like there there isn't really a conclusion to a peer review because you're I don't know if any of you guys have submitted papers, but they literally just bullet point like comments. Um, so I would say intro is more important. Has he just asked a question. What does excluded by group consensus mean in your methods? So, um, that means that we in our group discussed the paper and we thought it wasn't appropriate to include which is fine to do in a narrative review, I think so. You know, we went through and we're like, this doesn't really apply or this does not have enough, um, enough evidence or it doesn't really address the topic in a way which we want to include. It group is kind of a way to get away with not justifying if that answers your question, because you will have, like, sometimes you end up with a lot of papers. If you can't narrow down your search more so you know, if you have a discussion about it and you pick and choose the most recent ones or the most cited ones or seminal, then the other ones you can exclude and you're just like Yeah, that was group consensus. Um, pretty much, yeah. Um, no. You can stay in your methods. Like, um, the like. Full text screening was done by two independent people. And, um, any, um, what's the word? Like, any disagreements were, um, screened by a third person because you've got four people. Obviously, I wouldn't put them all under group consensus. Okay. Anymore, Que, um, also, can you please fill in the feedback form for Katarina? They'll be really, really useful. I'm going to fill it into because the talk was really useful. Thank you. Just wait, like, maybe 30 seconds more to see if anyone asks a question. I think people are starting to leave now, so it's looking like I don't think anyone has questions. Well, I hope that's a good sign. Okay. All right. Good stuff. Well, um oh, as he tells another question. So kids talk about studies on the topic, even the ones that you excluded other than your main ones? Um, yes. So you can introduce studies in your discussion that are not in your, like, main bulk of results. Um, but if you want to talk about it, you might as well include it if that makes sense. Like, that's why you have your criteria. So, like, think about why you excluded it and whether you want that criteria in it. Um, if it's a paper, that's a bit of an odd ball. And you, um, you want to use it to, um, explain or justify something in your discussion, Or maybe just point out, um, a disagreement or a discrepancy, then that's fine. To introduce a new one. No problem. Okay. Okay. I think like I keep saying that, And then someone asked another question. Well, see, I just, like, send the feedback form and again. Okay. It looks like everyone's asking questions. Um, thank you very much for coming. It's been lovely to see you. Um, and I hope your submission goes well, good luck. Okay. Good stuff on. All right. I think I'm going to end the call here in the recording. Um, thank you so much for giving the talk. It was amazing. And what I'll do is I'll send you your certificate, and I'll also send you like a version of the feedback once I've got all the responses in. But that's it. Have a lovely evening. You too. Bye. Good luck.