Article Evaluation

This module, we discussed what makes quality research. Peruse your current news feed from your favorite social media account (if you do not use social media, search “news in science” or something similar). Select an article based on a “discovery” or scientific claim and evaluate it based on the “Rough Guide to Spotting Bad Science”. You do not have to locate the actual journal article – we are examining media portrayal of science, so you do not have to go further than the actual news story. 

Check for plagiarism and AI

**This is a behavior analysis class

Rubric and Rough Guide to Spotting Bad Science attached

1. SENSATIONALISED HEADLINES
Headlines of articles are commonly designed to
entice viewers into clicking on and reading the
article. At best, they over-simplify the findings of
research. At worst, they sensationalise and mis­
represent them.

2. MISINTERPRETED RESULTS
News articles sometimes distort or misinterpret
the findings of research for the sake of a good
story, intentionally or otherwise. If possible, try
to read the original research, rather than relying
on the article based on it for information.

3. CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
Many companies employ scientists to carry
out and publish research – whilst this does not
necessarily invalidate research, it should be
analysed with this in mind. Research can also be
misrepresented for personal or financial gain.

4. CORRELATION Et CAUSATION
Be wary of confusion of correlation & causation.
Correlation between two variables doesn’t
automatically mean one causes the other. Global
warming has increased since the 1800s, and
pirate numbers decreased, but lack of pirates
doesn’t cause global warming.

5. SPECULATIVE LANGUAGE
()

Speculations from research are just that –
speculation. Be on the look out for words
such as ‘may’, ‘could’, ‘might’, and others, as it
is unlikely the research provides hard evidence
for any conclusions they precede.

6. SAMPLE SIZE TOO SMALL
In trials, the smaller a sample size, the lower
the confidence in the results from that sample.
Conclusions drawn should be considered with
this in mind, though in some cases small samples
are unavoidable. It may be cause for suspicion if
a large sample was possible but avoided.

7. UNREPRESENTATIVE SAMPLES
In human trials, researchers will try to select
individuals that are representative of a larger
population. If the sample is different from the
population as a whole, then the conclusions
may well also be different.

8. NO CONTROL GROUP USED
In clinical trials, results from test subjects should
be compared to a ‘control group’ not given the
substance being tested. Groups should also be
allocated randomly. In general experiments, a
control test should be used where all variables
are controlled.

9. NO BLIND TESTING USED
To prevent any bias, subjects should not know if
they are in the test orthe control group. In double­
blind testing, even researchers don’t know which
group subjects are in until after testing. Note,
blind testing isn’t always feasible, or ethical.

10. ‘CHERRY-PICKED’ RESULTS
This involves selecting data from experiments
which supports the conclusion of the research,
whilst ignoring those that do not. If a research
paper draws conclusions from a selection of its
results, not all, it may be cherry-picking.

11. UNREPLICABLE RESULTS
Results should be replicable by independent
research, and tested over a wide range of
conditions (where possible) to ensure they are
generalisable. Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence – that is, much more than
one independent study!

12. JOURNALS Et CITATIONS
Research published to major journals will have
undergone a review process, but can still be
flawed, so should still be evaluated with these
points in mind. Similarly, large numbers of
citations do not always indicate that research is
highly regarded .

• 2014 COMPOUND INTEREST – WWW.COMPOUNDCHEM.COM L@l<[92+W,J

WWW.COMPOUNDCHEM.COM

Discussion Post Rubric
20 Possible Points

Category 4 Points 2 Points 0 Points

Length of Post –
Enough content to
convey a scholarly
message

The author’s post
consisted of 150 – 200
words (Not counting
reference citations)

The author’s post
consisted of 100-149
words (Not counting
reference citations)

The author’s post
consisted of 100 words
or less (Not counting
reference citations)

Grammar, Usage,
Spelling – The author
proofread using
software for obvious
errors in grammar,
usage, and spelling

The author’s post
contained less than 2
grammar, usage, or
spelling errors.

The author’s post
contained 3-4 grammar,
usage, or spelling
errors.

The author’s post
contained more than 5
grammar, usage, or
spelling errors and
proofreading was not
apparent.

Referencing and
Utilizing Outside
Sources – The author
referenced all assigned
readings and (1) unique
reference

The author posted a
unique reference from a
peer-reviewed
document AND all the
assigned readings.

The author was missing
a unique reference from
a peer-reviewed
document or did not
cite all the assigned
readings.

The author neither used
a unique reference from
a peer-reviewed
document and/or did
not cite all the assigned
readings.

Promotes Discussion –
The author produces
content beyond a
summary and applies it
to a logical argument.

The author’s post
clearly responds to the
assignment prompt,
develops ideas cogently,
organizes them
logically, and supports
them through empirical
writing. The author’s
post also raises
questions or stimulates
discussion.

The author’s post
responds to the
assignment prompt but
relies heavily on
definitional
explanations and does
not create and develop
original ideas and
support them logically.
The author’s post may
stimulate some
discussion.

The author’s post does
not correspond with the
assignment prompt,
mainly discusses
personal opinions,
irrelevant information,
or information is
presented with limited
logic and lack of
development and
organization of ideas
Does not support any
claims made.

Demonstrates
Application – The
author is able to apply
content to an example
or real world
application

The author’s post
clearly demonstrates
application and
relationship to the
week’s assigned
reading/topic.

The author’s post refers
to the assigned
topic/reading
tangentially but does
not demonstrate
application.

The author’s post does
not demonstrate
application of the
week’s assigned
topic/reading.

Be advised, there are also response costs associated with specific behaviors:

● A response cost of 3 points will be administered for not responding to a peer’s post
● A response cost of 3 points will be administered for late submissions (up to 2 days)
● Discussion posts that are more than two days late will not be accepted unless excused by the

instructor