This is another modeling paper with far reaching significance. You can discuss your faith in such models, your scientific outlook on the pandemic based on the model, or discuss other models that might have similar or different outlooks.. Discussions will be graded on participation and the use of other publications. The default grade for a discussion post is 8. Appropriately citing other relevant primary research papers will earn 9, and discussing a primary paper in enough detail to show that you read it (i.e., citing figures and tables) will earn 10 points. If you used a primary research paper, you must label it in the reference list as a primary paper. If you do not indicate a primary paper, you still get 8.5, the grade for a review. If you mistakenly claim that a review is a primary paper, you will get a 7. Learning the difference between a primary research paper and a review is a major goal of this course.
Literature cited. Place your appropriately formatted references here. Pay attention to my instructions to get full credit. Label your ONE representative primary paper as such. You can use more than one, but you must label only one as your designated primary paper.
The related literature must be cited in the discussion text and appropriately referenced at the end of the discussion. The reference list must include: At least the first author, year, title, journal name, volume, page numbers. The DOI and web address get you nothing. If you cite an e-preprint, there is still a volume assigned and another number. If you just cite the journal, that it meaningless. If you’re in doubt, in PubMed there is a “cite” button that will give you the necessary info.
Here is a detailed description of a primary research paper (as opposed to review or news item). A primary research paper is where someone actually did some real bench science and experiments. They will have tables and figures of new data from their study (not data from other studies that they are commenting on). There will be a materials and methods section of the paper. There will be a results section and a discussion section. PubMed will also usually tell you if it is a review (but not always).
You do not get any credit for news articles, Wikipedia, CDC web pages, etc.
I am not looking for nor giving extra credit for lengthy posts. I’m looking for thoughtful posts. So please do not write more to get more. You don’t have to answer more than one discussion prompt, and you are always welcome to write your own subject. Of course, if you feel passionately about a paper, then write away! The whole purpose of this journal club is to enable a critical reading of the literature, promote critical thinking, teach some microbiology via the literature, and stimulate interest in science.
You don’t get extra credit for discussing numerous related papers to less detail. I would much rather that you discuss one relevant primary paper in enough detail to get a 10. This doesn’t mean writing volumes. It means describing some experiments in more detail than would be put in the abstract. You must cite a figure or table and summarize what it says. DO NOT QUOTE FROM THE PAPER (even if properly cited). THIS IS INTELLECTUALLY LAZY. If I cannot tell that you read the paper, I am not going to check the abstract. I don’t have time to do that. I am going to give you a 9.
"Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, guaranteeing you A results."