怎么写discussion paper格式是什么?请指教!

怎么写discussion paper格式是什么?请指教!
怎么写discussion paper
格式是什么?请指教!

怎么写discussion paper格式是什么?请指教!
既然你要写discussion paper,也有一定的英文水平,请看英文介绍.
Your Discussion Paper should consist of 4 sections,each approximately one half page of single spaced text.You need to write 3 Papers in all,due the day of the Class Discussion (no late exceptions will be granted).These are in addition to your Poster presentation,meaning that you cannot submit a report on the paper you are presenting.If you wrote a genome project proposal,it will substitute for one of these Discussion Papers.If you choose to do more than 3 Papers,I will give you the grade for the 3 best ones you write.
Section 1.Write a succinct one paragraph summary of the objectives and conclusions of the paper.A good summary is quantitative where appropriate (don’t write “they saw some differences in some of the genes”,rather write “5,702 of the 17,680 genes on the array were found to be significantly differentially expressed”).Also try to give a little bit of background to why they performed the study,but remember that you are writing scientifically,not for a magazine.Writing should be sharp and to the point,not poetic and superficial.
Section 2.Describe the work flow of the paper.You might even consider drawing out a flow diagram to help you,but convert this into text for your paper.This section should be more than a list of the experiments they performed:try to portray the logical connection between the experiments.For example,the authors start by doing X,which leads them to supect Y,so they did Z,which implied A and led them to conclude C.This should help you to see the logic of the approach,and if you see a flaw in the logic or feel that the conclusions are unjustified,explain why you think that is the case.
Section 3.Highlight the strenghts and weaknesses of the paper.You ought to be able to pinpoint three of each.Stengths might be that the study developed a new technology,or led to a new model of some process,or was a particularly clever design.Weaknesses might be that the sample size was too small,or that the experiment was misinterpreted,or that the study was poorly designed.You should ask yourself whether the paper achieved the objective the authors set themselves.Try to avoid complaining that you did not understand the paper because it was full of jargon or the statistics were too hard for you to follow:I expect that will often be the case,but usually it is because it is assumed that the papers are written for experts.If you have something you don’t understand,email or ask me.
Section 4.Think of two experiments that you would propose to follow-up on the paper.Don’t just write down the experiments,explain why you would do them and briefly outline what the procedure would be so that they make scientific sense.I expect that you may come up with some crazy ideas,and that some of the experiments will not be feasible.That is OK – I know you don’t know enough to be certain about things.In this section just be creative and insightful!