• Course teachers

Ole Kæseler Andersen, dr. scient. (oka@hst.aau.dk)

Mark de Zee, PhD (mdz@hst.aau.dk)

• Course secretary

Jette Damkjær (jette@es.aau.dk)

Vita Kammersgaard (vka@hst.aau.dk)

• Course literature (OKA part)

– Leedy & Ormrod. Practical Research: Planning and Design, 9th edition. Merrill, Prentice Hall, 2009.

– Slides: Available after each lecture

– Course homepage

www.hst.aau.dk/~oka/SMAC

• Examination: during the course

Videnskabsteori, -kommunikation og

etik

(SMAC) fall 2010

Course Plan

Lecture Topic Lecturer Lecture duration

1 Introduction to SMAC, scientific hypothesis OKA 2×45 min + exercise

2 Qualitative and quantitative research

methods

OKA 45 min + self study

3 Design of experiments MDZ 2×45 min

4 Reliability and validity of outcome

measures

MDZ 2×45 min + exercise

covering lectures

3+4

5 Bias, sample size and statistical power MDZ 45 min + self study

6 Epidemiological research MDZ (Uffe Læssøe) 2×45 min

7 Proper scientific conduct, biomedical ethics

and regulations

OKA 45 min + self study

8 Scientific communication, examples on

oral+poster communication

OKA 2× 45 min

9+10 SEMCON OKA + MDZ Full day

SMAC last lecture:

Preparing the research report

• General principles

• Different means with different purposes

• A note on style

– SEMCON format

• Illustrative examples

Research Island

• Dissemination

– Public

– Scientific community

– make you famous - and facilitate continuous funding

23th SEMCON 21.12.2010

(semester conference)

Presentation of semester projects within a scientific framework

• First announcement: 10.09.2010

– Planning research paper

– Allocation of time and space

• Second (final) announcement: 05.11.2010

– Specific guidelines for abstracts, posters and oral presentations

– Preparation of abstract drafts

– Deadline for abstracts: 14.12.2010

– Submit by sending the abstract to: Lisa Aoyama Eskildsen at Aoyama@hum.aau.dk

– Final acceptance

– Abstract book available online ONLY

– Schedule of oral presentations and poster presentations in abstract book found at http://www.smi.hst.aau.dk/~oka/SMAC/

SMAC

Contents

• Scientific process

– 4 (8 for S-SN) auditorium lectures

SEMCON 1st M.Sc. project

- Abstract (not necessarily the same as

in paper)

- Scientific paper

- Poster presentation - Worksheets

- Oral presentation - Repeat poster+oral

SEMCON

AWARD

Based on this and your performance on the SEMCON the conference committee (chaired by OKA) will select the winner

– Participation in an IEEE conference on European soil

– Or other study relevant travelling

– Price of Dkr 20.000 per group (or max kr 4000,- per member )

Planning the research report(1)

• The results of the research project must be ‘sold’ adequately

• Be careful with terminology – write precise, tiresome sentences

• Description of the problem

– Introduce and set the stage for the naive reader

– Reader must be able to understand the problem from this report only

– Provide rationale and background – the thrust behind the research work should be clear

– Emphasise what has been researched in this report and what has not (delimit the project)

– Present the hypotheses/aim

• Present the methods

– Utmost precision

– Reader should be able to replicate results

• Presentation of the data

– Use same structure/terminology as in methods

– From the problem (subproblems) follows the data

– Logic is imperative

– Complete presentation (tables, figures, appendices)

– Test of hypotheses (confirmation-rejection)

– Monotonous/uniform language is better than too many adjectives

• Interpretation of the data

– Presentation (what?) is one step - interpretation (why?) is the next and very important step

– Data may have more meanings than the ones you discover – present alternative interpretations if relevant – it may strengthen your chances for acceptance

– Tell what the data tell - not what you would like them to tell

Planning the research report(2)

Planning the research report(3)

• Interpretation of the data, cont.

– If the H0 hypothesis is accepted carefully review the methods

• Are the tools sufficiently sensitive? Reliable?

• Have you employed correct data analysis/statistics

• Insufficient power (sample too small or unreliable measures) type

II error (accept H0 even though it is false)

• Concluding remarks

– Overall conclusions

– Implications

– Future studies

General principles: a checklist before writing (1)

• Based on Leedy. Written communication (target, means etc.)

• The problem

– Is the problem clearly and concisely stated?

– Is the problem adequately narrowed down into a researchable problem?

– Is the problem significant enough to warrant a formal research effort?

– Is the relationship of the identified problem to previous research clear?

• Literature review

– Is the literature review logically organised?

– Does the review provide a critique of the relevant studies?

– Are gaps in knowledge about the research problem identified?

– Are important/relevant reference forgotten/omitted?

General principles: a checklist before writing (2)

• Theoretical or conceptual framework

– Is the theoretical framework easily linked with the problem, or is it

“forced”?

– Are concepts/framework defined?

• Research variables

– Are the dependent and independent variables operationally defined?

– Are the experimental / intervening variables identified?

• Hypotheses

– Is a predicted relationship between (2) variables included in the

hypotheses?

– Are the hypotheses clear, testable, and specific?

– Are the hypotheses logically derived from the theoretical concept /

framework?

• Descriptive study

– Is the aim of the study clearly described and based on a solid introduction?

General principles: a checklist before writing (3)

• Sampling

– Is the sample size adequate?

– Is the sample representative?

– Is the sampling method appropriate?

– Are the sample criteria for inclusion/exclusion into the study identified?

– Is there any sampling bias in the method?

• Research design

– Is the design adequately, appropriate and well described?

– Is there control for internal / external validity and reliability ?

• Data collection methods

– Are the methods appropriate for the study?

– Are the instruments described adequately?

• Data analysis

– Is the result section clearly and logically organized?

– Is the type of analysis appropriate for the level of measurement for each variable?

General principles: a checklist before writing (4)

• Data analysis, cont.

– Are the tables and figures understandable?

– Is the statistical test appropriate for answering the question?

• Interpretation and discussion

– Are the interpretation based on the data? (or on what you had hoped to

find)

– Are the findings discussed in relationship to previous research and to the

conceptual framework?

– Does the cited authors distinguish between actual findings and

interpretations?

– Are unwarranted generalisations made beyond the data?

– Are the limitations of the results identified?

– Are implications of the results discussed?

– Are recommendations for future research identified?

– Are the conclusions justified?

Different means to present

science • Consider patent filing

• Scientific writing

– Original / full research reports

– Short communications

– Technical communications

– Topical reviews

– Books or book chapters

– Academic thesis

– Conference abstracts

• Oral presentations

– Layman presentation

– Short/free communication

– Symposium/plenary lecture (invited)

• Public relations

– Media - press release

– Internet

Research papers

• Consider where to publish

– Impact - impact factors

– Publication metrics (journals are listed as ‟1‟ vs ‟2‟)

– Relevance / scope of journal

– Audience / readers

– Time (review process, publisher delay, becomes gradually more important)

– Internet publications – Web of Science – indexed!?!

• IMRAD style

– Introduction

– Materials and Methods

– Results

– and Discussion

past-tense

present tense

Research papers

• Read the paper by Day: „How to write

scientific papers‟

• Passive/active voice “the data were sampled by the computer”

“the computer sampled the data”

• Consistency in style is crucial

• Instruction to authors

– Different for every journal

J Neuroscience methods -

example Guide for Authors

The kind of papers which will be accepted are full- length articles and review-type articles on methods,

including their development, applicability and present status. Manuscripts should be sent to one of the

Editors-in-Chief.

Preparation of the text The length of articles should be restricted to 10 printed pages; i.e., approximately 18

manuscript pages. The manuscript should be accompanied by a title page, a list of 6-8 key words and an

abstract.

In order to expedite publication, the original and three copies (including figures) are required.

(a) The covering letter, addressed to the Editor-in-Chief, should include the names (with address, phone, fax

and e-mail details) of up to four potential reviewers.

(b) Manuscripts should be typewritten with double spacing and wide margins. Words to be printed in 'italics‟

should be underlined. The metric system is to be used throughout. Manuscripts should be organized as

follows:

Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, References, Tables, Figures and Legends.

Acknowledgements for personal and technical assistance should follow the Discussion section. Financial

support should be indicated in the Acknowledgements.

(c) The title page should be supplied as a separate sheet, to include the title, the name(s) of the author(s) and

their affiliations.

(d) An abstract of not more than 200 words should be on a separate sheet. It will appear at the beginning of

the paper.

References

References in the text should start with the name of the author(s), followed by the publication date in

brackets, e.g. Jones (1970) has shown the importance of. . ., or . . . has been described (Jones, 1970; Brown

and Jones, 1971; Chin et al., 1972). . .; using date order. All references cited in the text should be listed at the

end of the paper on a separate page (also double-spaced) arranged in alphabetical order of first author. All

items in the list of references should be cited in the text and,

The process of publication

• Write the paper bearing the selected journal in mind

• Submit the paper according to guidelines

• The Editor selects 2-3 reviewers. These remain unknown to the author

• Wait and hope

• The response – Rejected

– Conditionally accepted

– Accepted

• Material send to publisher by editor

• Authors proof read paper

• Printed/indexed

Academic thesis

• Master of Science (M.S.) – Monograph (report) based on 1-2 studies

– IMRAD-design

• Philosophy Doctor (Ph.D.) – Review and discussion of literature including own 3-4

published studies

– Monograph

– Public defence

• Doctoral thesis (dr. tech., dr. scient., dr. med.) – Review and discussion of literature including own 7-10

published studies (depending on type of work)

– Monograph

– Public defence

Conference abstracts

• Short communications of most recent research

• Traditions are different. Some professional areas reject papers others accept almost every submission (economy of the conference...)

• Normally immediately prior to publication of data in full research paper

– Feedback

– Direct interaction often leads to new ideas/collaboration

– Faster distribution of news

FACILITATION OF THE HUMAN WITHDRAWAL REFLEX BY REPEATED

ELECTRICAL STIMULI - A STUDY ON CENTRAL INTEGRATION

O.K. Andersen, F.A. Sonnenborg, L. Arendt-Nielsen

Aalborg University, Lab. for Experimental Pain Research, Center for Sensory-

Motor Interaction, Aalborg, Denmark

Aim: To study spinal sensory integration of repetitive painful and non-painful

electrical stimulation of varying frequencies (temporal summation) and intensities

(spatial summation) by measuring the withdrawal reflex and sensory intensity.

Methods: Thirteen volunteers participated in the study (243y). Electrical stimuli

were delivered to the dorsal foot to evoke withdrawal reflexes in semitendinosus.

Reflexes were evoked by a single stimulus and by trains of repetitive stimuli.

Five different stimulus intensities (0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8 times the reflex

threshold, RT) were used. For the repetitive stimulation, the duration of the train

was 2s and the frequency varied between 0.5, 1, 3, 5, 10, and 20Hz in random

sequence. All combinations of stimulus frequency and intensity were used with

five repetitions of each combination.

Results: Only the high stimulus intensity (10.3mA) was above the pain threshold

(9.1mA). For the repetitive stimuli, the intensity that evoked pain was lower than

the intensity required by a single stimulus to evoke pain. For high frequency

trains (10Hz) the low stimulus intensity (0.5RT) evoked pain, while for low

frequencies (1 Hz), intensities above 0.7RT was required to evoke pain. The

withdrawal reflex increased gradually through the train of repetitive stimulation

for frequencies above 1 Hz. The reflex facilitation was dependent on both

stimulus frequency and intensity (P<0.001). Thus, the strongest facilitation, and

Example of abstract

• Introduction often skipped – depends on type of conference/call for

abstracts

• Almost telegraph-style

• Minimal dicussion, conclusion=‟take home message‟

Short oral communication • Organisation of the talk

– Similar to paper: what was the problem - what is the solution? (IMRAD)

– Adapt to the expected knowledge level of the audience

– Trim down theoretical content and data and details to the essentials (e.g. 10 min)

– 3-repeat:

• state what you want to talk about

• talk about it

• summarise what you have talked about

– Use of AV-equipment

• Blackboard, Overheads, Video, Slides, audio

– Do not overload with text, graphs

– Sufficient contrast

– Use animation where relevant

Poster example