Chemistry Reference
In-Depth Information
study the figures and tables. Once we come to this point, we might wish to write
down the ideas we get from the data before proceeding to the
Results
. In reading the
Results
, we may find that some of the data in the figures and tables are of much more
interest to us than to the author(s). It may be that the authors are presenting data that
are directly relevant to our objectives but for a different reason than their objectives.
We may also find that the author(s) have pointed out something that makes sense but
was not obvious to us when first looking at the data.
Next, we can move to the
Discussion
section in which the author(s) explain the
meaning of their data to the readers. Note the areas in which we and the author(s)
agree and those which we do not agree. When we do not agree, we should try to find
the source of disagreement. Some reasons for disagreement could be
•
The author(s) are looking at different aspects than we are
•
We have missed an important point or concept or
•
There are differences in treatment selection or methodology
The last section in many articles is
Summary and Conclusion
. Sometimes there
is just a
Summary
or just a
Conclusion
or they may be wrapped into the end of the
Discussion
. The distinction between the two is that a
Summary
restates the most
important points (usually results) made previously in the article, but the
Conclusion
represents a synthesis of what the study means. A
Summary
, by definition, is repeti-
tious. A
Conclusion
is not repetitious.
The section that comes next is the one that most readers skip. Many do not even
print out the
References
section when making a hard copy. The
References
can pro-
vide some important information. Some questions we might wish to ask, particu-
larly as we become familiar with the topic, are
•
Which references are cited but not familiar to us? Do the titles indicate that we
should check them out?
Which references were we expecting to be cited but were not?
•
•
Were the references cited up to date for the time they were published?
Critical Evaluation of Literature
Most scientists are either good experimentalists OR good readers. Highly success-
ful scientists are good experimentalists AND good readers. When evaluating a
scientific article, the first glance should include a look at the type (primary, second-
ary, etc.) of the article, the type of journal (type, refereed, prestige) and the location(s)
of the authors. As described above, when we “read” a scientific article we actually
need to “study” it using our critical-thinking skills (Chap. 11) to incorporate careful
analysis accompanied by some note taking. In evaluating the article, we should ask
and be able to answer some, if not all of the following questions
•
What are the objectives? Are they stated? Have they been achieved?
•
What are the assumptions?—Stated? Underlying? Are they justifiable?
