the smackdown - S@M Style

[S@M]

Methodological information on the reveiw process is absent, giving readers no idea as to the quality or extensiveness of the review process.
The literature is described in a rather ad hoc fashion, and no critique of its strengths or weaknesses is given, thus its not clear how the literature was chosen, or why it was chosen, or what quality it is.
Grammar is poor throughout, with varied inappropriate use of plurals and future and past tense (eg page 5 lines 5 and 7 #### play an important role to ensure patients receive high quality care within the current health care systems)
Case reports use a particular reporting method, and usually provide a degree of detail specific to an event, this paper does not.
Headings have been used but are meaningless as nearly the whole paper is a general discussion of literature, and none of the literature discussion is related back to the particular case (which was poorly described), nor is the structure of the paper clear.
The implications for practice are drawn from literature which has not been critiqued, or reported in full - hence its not possible for the reader to make a judgement about the validity of the authors conclusions.
The stated limitations are not accurate - the single site case study is a valid approach - but in this case is so badly reported that I would hesitate to call it a case study. A far greater limitation is the poor quality of reporting in the accompanying literature.
This paper needs to be substantially re-written before it should be considered appropriate content for a journal.

this went to the journal - the author received a much more constructive, detailed critique on how to practically improve their paper.

[Ryoki]

people on the interweb like speaced text ey

come now

pfft

[S@M]

y e a h , s o I h e a r

p f f t t h e n ?

[Massive Quasars]

little private here, little public there

least we can hope for

[Captain]

people on the interweb like speaced text ey

come now

pfft

ey it be goenup

be it lik thur again man :lump:

iwan :typeitup: :eek:

[Scourge]

Heh, you guys are getting better at doing plained than plained is.

[S@M]

hey its phil,
how ya going phil

[tnf]

That looks like the lab reports and research papers my students get back when I'm done with them. But my comments are more along the lines of "I FOUND THIS ENTIRE PAPER ON THE INTERNET MORON. DON'T YOU THINK THAT YOUR TURNING IN A GRADUATE-LEVEL PAPER ON DNA REPAIR MIGHT HAVE TIPPED ME OFF THAT YOU DIDN'T WRITE IT?"

[S@M]

hehehe, Im safe from that type of marking etc, I just review papers for a few journals, and examine masters thesis
makes me glad not to be teaching, I dont envy you at all having to do that work - guess there are other perks or aspects you enjoy though

[Nightshade]

That looks like the lab reports and research papers my students get back when I'm done with them. But my comments are more along the lines of "I FOUND THIS ENTIRE PAPER ON THE INTERNET MORON. DON'T YOU THINK THAT YOUR TURNING IN A GRADUATE-LEVEL PAPER ON DNA REPAIR MIGHT HAVE TIPPED ME OFF THAT YOU DIDN'T WRITE IT?"

lol @ students that think their teachers are too stupid to use Google.

[MKJ]

hey it worked 10 years ago!

[tnf]

That looks like the lab reports and research papers my students get back when I'm done with them. But my comments are more along the lines of "I FOUND THIS ENTIRE PAPER ON THE INTERNET MORON. DON'T YOU THINK THAT YOUR TURNING IN A GRADUATE-LEVEL PAPER ON DNA REPAIR MIGHT HAVE TIPPED ME OFF THAT YOU DIDN'T WRITE IT?"

lol @ students that think their teachers are too stupid to use Google.

the sadder thing is there is some company that was offering a service schools would pay for that was basically a front end to google to search for term papers to look for plagiarism.

[seremtan]

it might have included lexis-nexis too :boioioing: