Weekly Schedule 11/5

Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday	Thursday	Friday
Scientific Discoveries Practice Writing	Atomic History Reading	Atomic History Reading	Atomic History Practice Writing	Scientific Discoveries Essay Test

Weekly Schedule 10/29

Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday	Thursday	Friday
Scientific Discovery Presentations	Scientific Discoveries Videos Turn in WWWWWH notes	Mr. Winberg Presentation on Penicillin and Plastics (Essay Test Next  Friday)	Mr. Winberg Gone- Collaboration with Fisher Atomic History Reading	Practice Writing Scientific Discoveries

Bela Fleck!

This Thursday at 1PM will be a FREE show by the amazing Bela Fleck at the Park Center Auditorium.  He's probably the world's greatest banjo player.  Even if you don't like the banjo, go see him.

Weekly Schedule 10/15

Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday
Collect Graphing Exercise Technology Report Research	Technology Report Research	Technology Report Research Two more days of work next week.

 

Weekly Schedule 10/8

Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday	Thursday
Theory vs. Law W.S. due end of hour	Scientific Method Practice Test (correct in class)	Graph Interpretation W.S. (due Monday)	Scientific Method Test (Mr. Winberg Gone) Graphing H.W.

Scientific Peer Review

How Scientific Peer Review Works

Most people didn't know much about scientific peer review five years ago. Then, in December 2005, South Korean scientist Dr. Hwang Woo Suk stunned the world by admitting that his stem cell research -- research that was supposed to revolutionize health care by helping to cure diseases ranging from diabetes to Parkinson's -- used fabricated data. Although the revelation brought disgrace to Hwang and poured fuel on the stem cell controversy, it had a more damaging effect on the public's perception of science itself. Suddenly, there were reports questioning how Science, the prestigious U.S. journal that published Hwang's findings, could have been so easily duped. Other reports condemned the process of science itself as antiquated and flawed.

At the heart of that process is scientific peer review, a quality-control system that requires all new scientific discoveries, ideas and implications to be scrutinized and critiqued by expert scientists before they become widely accepted. Peer review has been around for nearly 300 years, so it is not new. It just seems that way sometimes because of the attention it has received in the wake of the stem cell scandal. Unfortunately, increased awareness does not always translate into increased understanding. Many myths and misconceptions about peer review still exist, and many average citizens don't see how a system of checks and balances is important either to science or to their day-to-day decision making.

Peer review, also known as refereeing, is the cornerstone of science. It is a process whereby a scientist's research is assessed for quality before it is funded or published. The "peer" in peer review means that the scientist in question will submit his work to other experts in the field. In other words, if the scientist is a biologist studying the migration habits of a particular bird, he will submit that research to colleagues who have sufficient knowledge of birds and bird migration to give a thorough and proper evaluation. It's the job of the reviewers to comment on the quality, significance and originality of the research.

It all starts with a scientist and his research. When the research is completed, the scientist writes a paper describing the experimental procedure and the results. He then submits it to a journal that publishes papers in his field. The path to acceptance begins with the journal editors. They first review the submission to make sure it fits both the journal's subject-matter focus and its editorial platform. For example, some journals prefer to publish only groundbreaking research and may overlook even good papers that don't, in the opinion of the editors, drive the field forward. Only a small percentage of papers survive this initial evaluation. Those that do enter the formal peer review system.

Generally, the process of peer review involves an exchange between a journal editor and a team of reviewers, also known as referees. After the referees receive a paper from the editor, they read it closely and provide individual critiques, usually within two to four weeks. In their critiques, they:

• Comment on the validity of the science, identifying scientific errors and evaluating the design and methodology used
  
• Judge the significance by evaluating the importance of the findings
  
• Determine the originality of the work based on how much it advances the field. Reviewers also identify missing or inaccurate references.
  
• Recommend that the paper be published or rejected. Editors don't have to heed this recommendation, but most do.
  

The Numbers at Nature

Nature didn't establish its peer-review process until 1953, but has applied the process rigorously ever since. As a result, the quality of its content is thought to be unparalleled among all scientific journals. And getting work published in Nature can be quite difficult:

• Nature receives about 10,000 papers every year.
  
• Editors reject 60 percent of them in the first round of the review process.
  
• The rest are sent to handpicked referees.
  

Ultimately, Nature publishes about 7 percent of its submissions.

[source: Nature]

 

Peer Review Article Questions

• What is "fabricated data"?
  
• What is "scientific peer review"?
  
• Who are a scientist's "peers"?
  
• What is the job of the journal editors?
  
• Summarize the 4 things reviewers do
  
  • 
    
  • 
    
  • 
    
  • 
    
• What percent of articles submitted to Nature are accepted?
  

Grades

It appears as if TIES, our Gradebook provider, had some major system issues this week.  If you notice anything strange with your student's grade, PLEASE let me know.

Weekly Schedule 10/1

Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday	Thursday	Friday
Copter Lab Part A	Copter Lab Part A	Copter Lab Part B	Formative assignment review and corrections	Peer Review Annotation Finish Copter Lab graphs