- Joined
- Apr 26, 2004
- Messages
- 366
- Reaction score
- 20
- Points
- 4,676
- Age
- 46
That seems to be one of the most important and least 'taught' portions of our scientific careers. I can kinda tell what paper is crap, which paper is a classic and ones somewhere in between, but so far it's mostly by gestalt. I know a few criteria to judge by (is it physiological, do the authors understate/overstate their conclusions, were there appropriate controls), but I would appreciate some comments on this issue. Could someone add some criteria by which you judge the quality of any given publication? It doesn't have to be a thorough explanation (if it is, great; perhaps even a link to a website that has a commentary on the topic). Thanks 😀