new investigación biopatológica, clínica y operativa...

Investigación Biopatológica, Clínica y Operativa (IBCO) Área: Inglés Material preparado por las Profesoras Bexi Perdomo y Katerine De Jong

U-2016

1

UNIVERSIDAD DE LOS ANDES FACULTAD DE ODONTOLOGÍA DEPARTAMENTO DE INVESTIGACIÓN “JOSÉ RAFAEL TONA ROMERO” MÉRIDA – VENEZUELA MATERIA: INVESTIGACIÓN BIOPATOLÓGICA, CLÍNICA Y OPERATIVA PROF. BEXI PERDOMO Y KATERINE DE JONG

Introducción

Durante el desarrollo de la asignatura Investigación Biopatológica, Clínica y Operativa

(IBCO) se hace necesario que el estudiante lea una cantidad considerable de artículos

científicos en inglés para la construcción de su proyecto final de investigación. Para ello,

desde el área de inglés, se ejercitarán estrategias de lectura de textos científicos con el

propósito de extraer información que pueda ser incorporada en un trabajo de investigación

científica.

Los contenidos se desarrollarán de forma progresiva y se seguirá lo estipulado en el

programa vigente. Las actividades se realizarán de acuerdo al ritmo y necesidades de los

grupos o secciones. Adicionalmente, se dispondrá de sesiones no presenciales

planificadas para facilitar el logro de los objetivos.

La guía está estructurada por sesiones de clase en función de la cantidad de semanas

panificadas en el área de inglés. A su vez, cada sesión se estructura en tres partes de

forma que el estudiante sepa lo que deberá hacer (1) antes de clase, (2) durante la clase

y (3) después de clase. Además, se trabajará con videos explicativos que serán ubicados

en la página web de la asignatura de forma tal que puedan ser consultados cuando el

estudiante lo considere necesario.

Cada estudiante asume la responsabilidad de realizar las actividades asignadas para

alcanzar el logro de los objetivos. Por lo tanto se asume que el estudiante ha investigado

y preparado lo indicado en la guía y no se procederá a detener la clase para desarrollar

aspectos que deban traerse preparados.

Durante las evaluaciones cada estudiante debe tener su propio material de apoyo, y en el

caso de trabajo en pareja o grupo cada grupo funciona como una unidad con sus propios

materiales. No se permitirá el intercambio de éstos durante las evaluaciones; en este

sentido, cada estudiante o grupo asume la responsabilidad de traerlos a clase y a las

evaluaciones.

2

Unidad I

Objetivo 1.2: Desarrollar estrategias de lectura para la selección de información científica específica en inglés

Contenido 1.2.1 Skimming y Scanning

Semana 1 Clases planificadas: 1 Clases restantes: 0 Evaluación: Formativa

PREVIO A CLASE:

- Investigar qué es Skimming y qué es Scanning.

- Leer los textos titulados:

1. Skimming and Scanning Improvement: The Needs, Assumptions and Knowledge Base (Matha Maxwell)

2. Reading scientific papers (Robert Siegel)

Skimming and Scanning Improvement: The Needs, Assumptions

and Knowledge Base Martha J. Maxwell*

Journal of Literacy Research March 1972 vol. 5 no. 1 47-59

Abstract

The best way, and perhaps the only way, for today's student to cope with the effects of the information explosion on college reading lists is to become a competent and confident skimmer and scanner. Despite this obvious “need,” it is difficult to get students to skim and scan because of the negative attitudinal biases of both students and teachers. As a result, these skills are either ignored or not taught effectively. Failure to teach skimming and scanning skills is postulated as the reason many reading programs fail to produce flexible readers. Evidence is presented that skimming and scanning skills can be taught effectively. The results of a series of studies conducted in the process of developing and field-testing a skimming and scanning improvement program are described and their implications discussed.

3

Reading scientific papers

Robert Siegel

Professor at Stanford University

Phase I: Screening the article

1) Read the title once fast looking for key words. Read the title slowly until it makes

sense.

2) Look through the authors to see if there is anyone whose name you recognize,

whose work you know. This is an important process in trying to judge the quality of the

data.

3) Look at the date. In molecular biology, where information is rapidly changing, the

date may be all-important. With policy issues, the date is less important than the quality of

thought. Bear in mind that there is a definite lag period between when the research gets

done, when the article gets written and when it gets published. In addition to the publication

date, many journals list the date when the article was received, and the date when the

article was accepted. Interestingly, journals that are refereed (see below) are more likely to

be delayed in their publication, but are less likely to contain inaccurate or frivolous articles.

4) Some articles have a brief list of key words. Although they are sometimes misleading (as

anyone who has done a computer reference search knows) they are usually quite

informative and should be looked at early on.

Phase II: Getting the punch line.

1) Read the abstract once fast looking for key words. Read the abstract slowly until it

makes sense.

2) Read introduction. The introduction is often the easiest part of an article to read. In

some cases, it is also the most informative - not so much in terms of presenting new

information, but in consolidating background information. Some authors will also present

the punch line of their research in a way that is easier to understand than the way it is

presented in the abstract.

3) The introduction will often cite many of the references. This is an excellent time to

begin looking at them. The references are particularly informative if they contain the titles of

the articles being cited. You will want to go back to the reference page over and over

again.

4

Phase III: Understanding the approach

1) Peruse the figures and tables. You will not understand them this first time through

but this will help you know what to look for when you actually read the article.

2) Go to the discussion. Read the first few paragraphs and the last few paragraphs. If it

is short and/or easy to understand, read the whole thing.

Phase IV: First reading

1) If you get this far you may wish to get the whole article if you have not already done

so.

2) Skim the abstract and the introduction once again. At this point you should be able to

have an adequate understanding of them.

3) Skim the methods section. The methods section will need to be studied carefully

only if you intend to use some of the procedures in your research.

Certain parts of the methods, such as where the chemicals were purchased or whence the

viral strains were obtained do not actually contribute to an understanding of the article and

may be safely omitted. Other parts of the methods may remain obscure even after the rest

of the article is fairly clear. For our purposes, the methods should be studied only in so far

as they contribute to the understanding of the rest of article.

4) Read the results section.

5) Read the discussion.

6) Study the figures and tables.

Phase V: Increasing understanding

1) Reread the article in its entirety. You may wish to read several times.

2) Be sure to write on the article. Circle words you do not know. Check important

points. Question things you do not understand or that do not appear to make sense. X-off

things that are wrong. Jot down further ideas or questions.

3) Consult the references. Look up points that were not fully explained.

Consult textbook to clarify points of general biology. Look up words that are unfamiliar.

4) Before leaving the article, reread the abstract once again.

Downloaded from: https://web.stanford.edu/~siegelr/readingsci.htm

5

EN CLASE:

1. Discutir acerca de las estrategias de Scanning y Skimming y su pertinencia en el ámbito de la investigación científica odontológica.

2. Discutir acerca de la utilidad de ambas estrategias en la elaboración del proyecto de investigación.

DESPUÉS DE CLASE:

1. Ejercite las estrategias estudiadas con textos de su interés, tanto en su lengua materna como en inglés.

Unidad I (Continuación)

Objetivo 1.2.: Desarrollar estrategias de lectura para la selección de información científica específica en inglés.

Contenido 1.2.2 Características generales de los artículos científicos odontológicos en inglés


PREVIO A CLASE: 1. Repase lo discutido en la clase anterior. 2. Ubique tres artículos científicos de su interés y tráigalos a clase (caso

clínico, artículo de investigación y revisión sistemática).

EN CLASE:

1. Discutir acerca de los rasgos comunes y diferenciadores entre un artículo de investigación, un caso clínico y una revisión sistemática.

2. Revisar los artículos traídos a clase y describir los elementos que lo componen.

6

DESPUÉS DE CLASE:

1. Ejercitar lo estudiado, revisando algunos artículos de su interés (en inglés).

2. Ver video de la semana 2 (ubicarlo en la página Web de la profesora).



Contenido 1.2.3 Uso de la estructura retórica de los artículos científicos en

inglés para su comprensión lectora.


.

PREVIO A CLASE:

1. Lea el artículo titulado: Contributing to research: the basic element of a scientific manuscript (Kurmis, 2003)

2. Traer en formato impreso la ficha para la actividad evaluada.

7

Radiography (2003) 9, 277e282

doi:10.1016/j.radi.2003.09.001

Contributing to research: the basic elementsof a scientific manuscriptA. P. Kurmis, PhD, BMR (Hons), B App Sc (Med Rad), Researcher/Lecturer

School of Informatics and Engineering, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide,South Australia 5001, Australia

The changing focus within medical and allied health disciplines towards evidence-basedpractice has resulted in an increasing acceptance of research and professional research-ers. Despite the shift towards tertiary degree-based training for medical imaging andallied specialty streams, with many teaching institutions now incorporating compulsoryresearch components into their final year curriculum, the level of active involvementin research among graduates remains low. In addition to this, many of those who com-pleted their training before the introduction of university degree courses have had littleor no exposure to hands-on research.

While not overtly difficult, the process of ‘writing up’ the findings of a research en-deavour for presentation to peers can often seem a somewhat daunting task, especiallyfor novice researchers. The structure of a scientific manuscript however follows a rel-atively basic and universally accepted pattern, adherence to which can greatly simplifythe writing process.

To contribute to a wider understanding of research, the purpose of this paper is toprovide an overview of the basic elements of a scientific research paper for journalpublication. The outline provided, while not intended to be a recipe for manuscriptconstruction, will provide a fundamental framework to assist student, junior or inexpe-rienced researchers in their writings.

ª 2003 The College of Radiographers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

KEY WORDS:research manuscript;writing style; publication.

(Received 24 March 2003;revised 28 May 2003;accepted 13 September 2003)

PREFACE

With the change to university-based degree trainingmodels for educating medical radiation and allied pro-fessionals the fundamental skill base of individuals inour field is evolving [1]. Courses now focus on muchmore than simply the process of generating radio-graphic images. Graduates are assumed to have a solidunderstanding of anatomy and physiology, know howto care for and effectively communicate with patients,how to operate complex computing and imagingequipment, as well as knowing the legal and me-dico-ethical conditions by which we are bound [2].

Correspondence should be addressed to: A. P. Kurmis, RMB 971Ackland Hill Road, Coromandel East, South Australia, 5157.Australia. Tel: 61-8-8275-1753; Fax: 61-8-8374-1998.E-mail address: [email protected]

1078–8174/03/000277+06 $30.00/0 ª 2003 The College

In addition, many courses now incorporate a researchcomponent that exposes students to basic researchconcepts and may even involve an active research en-deavour [3]. Post-graduate studies are becoming in-creasingly more popular as individual institutionsestablish their own higher degree programs.Despite this, research within our profession is not

currently being carried out or actively participated inby the majority [1, 3]. Few professional membershave a solid understanding of the sequential steps in-volved in effectively carrying out a research project[1]. One essential component in the research cas-cade (arguably the most important) is the processof writing up the results so that we may share withothers what our work has shown us (what benefit isinformation that is not shared?) [1, 4, 5].While the completion of a research endeavour

can be (and often is) a difficult and demanding task,

of Radiographers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

8

mailto:[email protected]

278 KURMIS

writing up the findings of the work in a form that canbe published for others to read (and understand)presents an entirely new challenge by itself [6, 7].This initially may seem like a simple and easy step.However, having worked hard to complete the pro-ject work, any honours year or higher degree grad-uate will tell you that, if not approached correctly,manuscript writing can, unnecessarily, be one ofthe most challenging stages of research.

While this paper is not a ‘cut and paste’ templatefor manuscript writing and the method presentedshould not be considered the ‘only’ way to constructa paper (there are in fact many other valid and ac-cepted formats for presenting research in scientificjournals other than the one detailed here), it doesprovide a solid outline, overview and discussion ofthe key elements of one of the most widely usedstyles for research presentation within medical andallied health periodical publications. It is hoped thatthis paper will prove to be of some benefit in guidinginexperienced or student researchers, or those withno formal training in research methods, to appropri-ately structure scientific manuscripts.

The following sections initially introduce somehelpful ‘rules of thumb’ in putting together and edit-ing a research paper and then describe the basic ele-ments which form one. For those wishing to gain aneven more detailed understanding of this skill, thereare several easy to read text books available [8e10].

GENERAL RULES

Within a basic accepted framework, a research pa-per represents an opportunity for authors to ex-press the results, findings and outcomes of theirwork in an individual manner [11]. The style of writ-ing and presentation varies enormously from paperto paper [11] and beyond the individuality of the au-thor(s) and the discipline itself, is heavily influencedby the type of work reported, the journal of publica-tion and the intended target audience. Despite thisdiversity, there are many fundamental rules that allgood scientific writers follow including adherenceto brevity, concision, and logical structure and flow[4, 5, 7]. Understanding and applying these rulescan be useful in helping inexperienced writers im-prove the quality of their work. Listing every cri-terion of ‘good writing’ is well beyond the scope ofthis paper but the following paragraphs presentssome key ideas to keep in mind when writing.

Basic writing tips

All work should be presented with a progressive,logical flow so others can follow your ideas, meth-ods and understand how your conclusions were ra-tionally drawn [7]. It is important to cater not justfor experts in the field about which you write butalso for general readers with basic or little know-ledge of your topic area [4, 5, 12]. Technical termsshould be defined, and jargon [4] and ‘flowery’ non-scientific writing avoided.

Avoid excessive repetition of words or terms (arethere appropriate synonyms for substitution?). Becareful also of overuse of complicated or scientificwords and terms [4], they can make reading difficultfor members of the non-expert audience. Intro-duced abbreviations may be appropriate in describ-ing highly technical work, allowing readers tofollow the writing with little interruption to flow.

Ensure consistency of tense throughout the paper[4]. Usually the past tense is most appropriate (i.e.These experiments were performed.) after all,you have finished the research, so the majority ofthe research paper should be a past tense reflectionof work already done.

And finally the golden rule of all writing (no mat-ter what the topic area)densure the correct use ofgrammar and spelling [1, 4, 7]. Nothing frustrates ed-itors and reviewers more than glaring basic textualerrors. On this topic, be aware that electronic spell-ing and grammar checkers are not infallible [4]. Thesame word may take several forms, all correct, butspelt differently (there, their, they’re etc.). Your spellchecker does not have the ability to distinguish be-tween different forms of the same word. Alwaysproofread your own work prior to submission (hav-ing someone else review your work can also be veryhelpful) [1].

BASIC MANUSCRIPT STRUCTURE

Most scientific journals follow the basic manuscriptformat of ‘introduction’, ‘methods’, ‘results’, ‘discus-sion’ and ‘conclusions’ (which may arise from thediscussion or be presented as a separate section) [4,11]. Several other supplementary sections including‘acknowledgments’, a ‘reference list’ and a series of‘figures and tables’ also contribute to the formationof the complete paper. It is important to note thatwhile this list of sections are common to a ‘standard’paper, they may not necessarily be appropriate in all

9

BASIC ELEMENTS OF A SCIENTIFIC MANUSCRIPT 279

forms of scientific writing. Individual manuscripts areusually preceded by an ‘abstract’ or overview state-ment. The size (word length) of each section variesfrom paper to paper, although some journals mayset specific limits for individual sections. The lengthof the paper itself (excluding references) is generallybetween 3000 and 5000 words [11], although somemay be justifiably more (i.e. review articles) or less(i.e. short technical notes).Table 1 provides a summary of the sections con-

tributing to a ‘standard’ scientific manuscript. Therole and purpose of these sections are now ex-plored and described in more detail.

Introduction

Being the first component of the paper, this sectionshould explain the justification for the study. Itshould discuss relevant previous work in the area[4] (if any), which will require the author(s) to havecompleted a thorough literature search [12]. Themajority of references to earlier work are generallymade in this section. The introduction places thecurrent work in perspective [4], states the purposefor the study and what is already known about thetopic, and explains the motivation for the study.The latter will often be an identified deficiency inthe existing body of knowledge [11]. Having ex-plained the background and rationale for the currentstudy the author(s) should justify the use of any spe-

cific tools, techniques and approaches to be em-ployed which may be considered experimental,non-routine or those not widely understood. Every-day or ‘accepted’ techniques do not require lengthydiscussion or justification. Do not waste space ex-plaining what will be done (this follows in the meth-ods section); explain why it will be done.Having summated and presented the current level

of scientific knowledge on the topic under investiga-tion, the introduction concludes by discussing thespecific problem to be addressed by the author(s),perhaps suggesting specific hypotheses that lead toan explicit statement of the aim(s) of the research.

Methods (or materials and methods)

The methods section explains exactly what was donein carrying out the research that is being reported.While traditionally this section should provideenough detail to ensure the work is independentlyreproducible [4], a fine balance of the level of detailprovided must be found to ensure that the workdoes not become unnecessarily long so as to‘scare off’ or ‘lose the interest’ of readers [11]. Theauthor(s) should ensure that non-expert readers un-familiar with the work can still follow the basic logic.This section should be sequential, clear and

concise. Do not waste time explaining acceptedapproaches or equipment use [4] (i.e. none of us will

Table 1 The structure of a scientific paper

1 Abstract Provides a concise overview of all major sections of the paper including key results and con-clusions.

2 Introduction Should provide justification for the study by identifying a niche area within the existing bodyof knowledge and also identifying specific aims or hypotheses that become the focus of thedescribed research.

3 Methods Should describe the way the study was carried out with sufficient detail to allow repeatabil-ity and to allow others to judge the scientific reliability of the work.

4 Results Should describe the findings of the study without interpreting them.5 Discussion Allows the author(s) to interpret their findings and place them in the context of the pre-

vious knowledge in the field. Recognise limitations to work, sources of bias, areas for im-provement and areas for future work.

6 Conclusions Allows the author(s) to express the conclusions that can be drawn from the study in light ofthe presented findings.

7 Acknowledgements Opportunity to thank and recognise those who have assisted or contributed to the studybut are not named as co-authors.

8 Reference list Source list of materials cited directly in the text.9 Figures and tables As appropriate to support the information contained in or message conveyed by the study.

10

280 KURMIS

benefit from a step by step guide to taking a chestX-ray if such a procedure was performed as partof your work). Where methods have been describedpreviously, cite the former work to save repetitionand unnecessary text [4] e.g. Using a method pre-viously described by Smith et al... Finally, the methodssection should describe the statistical techniquesused in data analysis [4, 11].

Results

This section reports the findings of the current studyrelevant to the focus of the paper. Collateral datacollected during the same project, but not directlyapplicable to current paper and its purpose, onlyconfuses the reader, is unnecessary and should beomitted. Any new information collected, not directlyrelated to the current study but of sufficient sci-entific merit or interest, should be considered forpresentation in a separate paper. As a general rule,one paper should reflect the investigation of oneprincipal hypothesis although several linked sub-hy-potheses may be reported in the same work.

It is often easier to list the key results in order ofimportance [11] or in the order that they will be ex-plored in the discussion section. Tables may be anappropriate way of summarising data and savingwritten text if concise and clearly presented [12].However, be careful not to overuse them [4]. Inmany cases it may not be necessary to list the fulldata for individual subjects or tests; summary statis-tics may be a more appropriate means of conveyingsuch information [4].

In reporting statistical outcomes in the resultssection, always explicitly state P values, rather thanjust P!0:05 (too many authors fail to do this). Stat-ing the full P value allows the reader to draw his orher own educated conclusions as to the likely signif-icance of the result [11].

It is not appropriate to discuss the findings in thissection [4], but rather to concentrate on stating theresults. Remember that all findings to be discussed insubsequent sections must have been presented inthis section. Conversely, any results which are notdiscussed further should be considered for omissionas they may be irrelevant.

Discussion

This is the opportunity for the author(s) to discusstheir findings in light of previous work, to discuss

limitations [4], major assumptions and the generalis-ability of results and to highlight opportunities forfuture work. No new results should be discussedthat have not previously been introduced [11]. It iscommon practice to begin the discussion section witha reiteration of the original purpose for the study orthe original research aim or hypothesis [11].

Discussion of key results usually takes place in or-der of importance (matching the order in which theywere presented in the results section). This sectionis often loosely linked to the key ideas raised in theintroduction section. Compare and contrast findingswith parallel or comparable work in the topic area.Discuss how the findings of your study may be con-sidered e.g. to add support for a change to existingtechniques or management pathways.

Where possible suggest rational explanations forunexpected or unusual results or outlying discretedata points. A sign of an experienced author and re-searcher is the ability to critically discuss his or herown work. Do not be afraid to state that a particularfinding cannot be easily explained [11], the phenom-enon may be more widespread than just your workand may be itself worthy of further investigation.

All identified limitations must be discussed or theauthor unjustly biases the information presented tothe reader. Remember that in radiology and medicalradiations we are often limited by things such as ex-pense, ethical considerations, small patient popula-tion and equipment or specialist access. Althoughnot an excuse to be lazy in recruitment, be awarethat such factors may realistically limit available sam-ple sizes. By discussing the limitations the authormay identify opportunities for other work or im-provements to the current work which may be thefocus of future studies.

Conclusions

The main body of the manuscript usually finisheswith a conclusion statement that may be includedas an integrated part of the formal discussion sectionor listed as a separate heading. This section providesa concise summary of the key conclusions that canbe drawn from the current work in light of the re-ported findings, placed in the context of any relevantearlier work. This is the opportunity for the au-thor(s) to present to the reader the relevance of thework undertaken and to concisely define how thisnew information contributes to the existing body ofknowledge. Recommendations for interpretation or

11

BASIC ELEMENTS OF A SCIENTIFIC MANUSCRIPT 281

application of the findings are usually reinforced suc-cinctly at this point. No new material should be in-troduced to the paper in this section (i.e. all pointsdiscussed here should have been raised and ad-dressed previously).

SUPPLEMENTARY MANUSCRIPTSECTIONS

There are several other sections that supplementthe main body, that combine to complete the manu-script. The presentation and ordering of these sec-tions vary between journals but they are all usuallypresent in most scientific papers.

Acknowledgements

The acknowledgement section is usually only a cou-ple of lines and is an opportunity for the author(s) torecognise the assistance and support of those asso-ciated with the study but who were not listed as au-thors [13]. Appropriate acknowledgements may bemade to supervisors, statisticians and other supportstaff and those associated with the design and imple-mentation of the study (e.g. non-author research as-sistants or data collectors). It is appropriate at thispoint to thank and recognise organisations that havecontributed towards the funding of the study. De-partments and institutions may sometimes also beappropriately thanked for their assistance and sup-port. Study subjects should not be named for dataprotection reasons but may be made reference togenerally at the discretion of the authors (i.e. the au-thors wish to sincerely thank those persons who volun-teered their time to participate in this study).

Reference list

The reference list is usually the last text section pre-sented sequentially in the manuscript, it lists all ofthe earlier work referred to in your article [4].The journal Radiography employs the Vancouver ref-erencing style. This system involves numbering thecitations in the reference list in the sequential orderthat they appear in the text. For details of the spe-cific presentation of the in-text citations and thereference list, refer to the ‘Instructions to Authors’section found at the end of each edition of the journal.

Figures and tables

The use of figures and tables in a manuscript can be anexcellent way of clearly and succinctly presentinglarge amounts of information or for ameliorating theneed to include lengthy textual descriptions. Figurescan often allow the reader a visual appreciation or spa-tial understanding of equipment and concepts rele-vant to the study being reported, while tables can beuseful in providing large volumes of raw or analyseddata and can be a simple means of demonstrating adirect comparison between two or more data sets.Only figures or tables which are directly related

to the current study and add some benefit to thework should be included [12]. Figures and tables thatdo not add direct benefit to the interpretation orunderstanding of the specific study being reported,even if they are of substantive or significant scientificmerit, should be omitted. All figures and tables pre-sented must be referred to at some point in the text.Any figures or tables included in the article for con-sideration for publication should be submitted at theend of the manuscript. If your article is accepted forpublication, the editorial team will appropriately in-sert the figures and tables into the text to accommo-date the final presentation format. Each figure ortable should be provided on a separate page withits own caption (title). The caption should providea brief description of the figure or table and providea clear explanation of any labels. Where the manu-script includes more than one figure or table, a sum-mary ‘Captions List’ should also be provided, listingthe figures and tables in the order they would ap-pear in the text.

Abstract

Having written the polished version of the manu-script, the final task is to prepare a concise abstract[4, 11]. The purpose of this section, which will pre-cede your manuscript in the journal, is to provide anoverview of all the major elements of your work, therationale and justification, the method employed, thekey result(s) and conclusions drawn. The ‘Instruc-tions to Authors’ section of the journal Radiographyasks that authors submitting their work for publica-tion keep their abstracts to less than 250 words.Many junior authors will find it more difficult towrite a quality piece for this brief section than any ofthe other much larger sections. One useful practicaltip for starting the formation of the abstract comes

12

282 KURMIS

from taking the key sentence or two from each ofthe major manuscript sections (i.e. introduction,methods, results, discussion and conclusions) andcombining them sequentially. These sentences canthen be modified to generate a succinct and inte-grated, flowing piece of writing summarising thereported work. Those seeking a more detailed un-derstanding of the importance, structure and prepa-ration of a scientific abstract should refer to theearlier work of Haynes et al. [14] titled: ‘More infor-mative abstracts revisited’.

Be aware that given the great diversity and volumeof articles available for an avid reader, your abstractshould draw the interest of the potential audienceand provide an accurate but concise description ofthe study. Many readers will only read the abstracts,others will use the abstract as a guide as to whetheror not to read the full article. This applies similarly tojournal reviewers who are most likely to gain theirfirst impression of your work from the abstract.The quality of the abstract has the potential to placea strong bias on the light in which the reviewerassesses the rest of the paper. Rememberdfirstimpressions last!

IN CONCLUSION

Although it may initially seem daunting, writing amanuscript for submission for publication need notbe [15]. By following a widely accepted basic scientificdesign, authors can structure their work to presentit in a format suitable for submission [15]. In logicallyaddressing a handful of key headings, the process ofmanuscript writing can be made infinitely simpler thantrying to write a single continuous research report.

Brevity and concision are important factors toconsider when writing for publication [11], as arefundamental elements such as correct spelling anduse of grammar. Always consider the likely target au-dience when constructing a research paper [4, 5,12], as well as the discipline itself, as individual fieldshold their own conventions as to the appropriateform that a manuscript should take.

It is hoped that this paper will prove useful inassisting student, junior and inexperienced research-ers, within the medical radiations fields, in conveyingtheir findings to others through publication in theCollege’s official journal, Radiography. Those withno previous exposure to research may also benefitfrom learning how simple this process can become

and may be inspired (or more inclined) to aid inthe development of their own profession by initiat-ing or participating in active research.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

For further journal specific information, pertainingto the preparation and submission of a scientificmanuscript for consideration for peer-reviewedpublication in the journal Radiography, refer to the‘Instructions to Authors’ section found at the endof each edition or contact the Editor-in-Chief.

REFERENCES

1. Kurmis AP. Publishing scholarly work: understandingthe peer-review process. Radiographer 2003; 50(1):45e8.

2. Lewis S. Reflection and identification of ethical issuesin Australian radiography: a preliminary study. Radio-grapher 2002; 49(3): 151e6.

3. Scutter S. Attitudes of medical radiation students toresearch. Radiographer 2002; 49(1): 19e22.

4. Lapin GD. How to write a winning scientific paper:a judge’s perspective. IEEE Eng Med Biol 1994; 584e5.

5. White LJ. Writing for publication in biomedical jour-nals. Prehosp Emerg Care 2002; 6(2 Suppl): S32e7.

6. Guilford WH. Teaching peer review and the processof scientific writing. Adv Physiol Educ 2001; 25(1e4):167e75.

7. Newell R. Writing academic papers: a guide forprospective authors. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2001;17(2): 110e6.

8. Australian Government Publishing Service. StyleManual 6th edn. Canberra, Australia: John Wiley &Sons Australia Ltd., 2002.

9. DePoy E, Gitlin LN. Introduction to Research. St. Louis,USA: Mosby-Year Book Inc., 1994.

10. Blaxter L, Hughes C, Tight M. How to Research.Philadelphia, USA: Open University Press, 2000.

11. Brand RA. Structural outline of an archivalpaper for the journal of biomechanics. J Biomech2001; 34(11): 1371e4.

12. Wachs JE. From idea to publication: the secrets ofpublishing. AAOHN J 1996; 44(6): 273e7.

13. Meeker BJ. Write now: a guide to publishing. TodaysOR Nurse 1992; 14(11): 7e9.

14. Haynes RB, Mulrow CD, Huth HJ, Altman DG,Gardner MJ. More informative abstracts revisited.Ann Intern Med 1990; 113: 69e76.

15. Dixon N. Writing for publication: a guide for newauthors. Int J Qual Health Care 2001; 13(5): 417e21.

13

AR

TÍC

UL

O 1

.

Titu

lo

Au

tore

s

Revis

ta

Añ

o

Vo

l (N

), p

p

Tip

o d

e a

rtíc

ulo

Pro

ble

ma

pla

nte

ado

Ob

jetivo

Utilid

ad

de

este

art

ícu

lo p

ara

su

in

ve

stig

ació

n

AR

TÍC

UL

O 2

. T

itu

lo

Au

tore

s

Revis

ta

Añ

o

Vo

l (N

), p

p

Tip

o d

e a

rtíc

ulo

Pro

ble

ma

pla

nte

ado

Ob

jetivo

Utilid

ad

de

este

art

ícu

lo p

ara

su

in

ve

stig

ació

n

NO

TA

: u

se

ta

nto

espa

cio

po

r fich

a c

om

o le

se

a n

ece

sa

rio

. D

eb

e h

ace

r 4

fic

ha

s (

una

pa

ra c

ada

art

ícu

lo)

co

mo

se

ob

se

rva

en e

l e

jem

plo

. P

ue

de

im

prim

ir p

or

am

ba

s c

ara

s o

en

pa

pe

l d

e r

ecic

laje

.

14

EN CLASE:

1. Discutir la importancia de conocer la estructura de los textos en el ámbito de la investigación científica.

2. Discutir acerca de la estructura del género artículo de investigación (estructura IMRaD/IMRyD).

3. Visita a la Biblioteca para recibir instrucciones de la tarea a realizar.

DESPUÉS DE CLASE:

1. Ver la clase en línea (Video de la semana 3, ubicarlo en la página Web de la profesora).

2. Preparar el material para la clase siguiente.

EVALUACIÓN (actividad a realizar en biblioteca)

Directrices:

1. Seleccionar cuatro artículos relacionados con un tema de investigación de su interés para preparar un texto sobre el mismo. Llenar, en castellano, una ficha para cada uno de los artículos seleccionados (ver formato de ficha en página siguiente. El tamaño es referencial, use el espacio que sea necesario).

2. En hoja aparte, escribir un texto breve (máximo 3 párrafos) basado en los artículos. Este texto deberá aproximarse a un planteamiento del problema o a una justificación del mismo. Para ello, tome en cuenta la información que incluyó en las fichas. Recuerde que en este nivel, se evalúa la correcta redacción con especial énfasis en la cohesión y coherencia.

3. Entregar grapado (puede ser en papel de reciclaje) en la fecha y hora indicada por la profesora:

Portada: Identificación institucional, identificación de la tarea, identificación de los responsables (nombre y sección de cada uno), fecha de entrega.

Fichas de la parte 1 de la actividad (llenas)

Resumen escrito en español del tema que desarrolló en función de los artículos consultados (Cuidar el uso adecuado del sistema de referencias seleccionado).

15






PREVIO A CLASE:

1. Preparar artículos de casos clínicos para analizarlos en clase.

EN CLASE:

1. Ver video de la semana 4 (ubicarlo en la página web de la asignatura).

2. Tomar notas acerca de la estructura retórica del género estudiado.

DESPUÉS DE CLASE:

1. Avanzar con la asignación a entregar la semana 9.


16






.

PREVIO A CLASE:

1. Lea el texto titulado: Systematic Review.

Systematic reviews Background: explains the context or elaborate on the purpose and rationale of

the review.

Objectives: This should be a precise statement of the primary objective of the

review, ideally in a single sentence.

Search strategy: This should list the sources and the dates of the last search.

Selection criteria: These should be given as ‘[type of study] of [type of

intervention or comparison] in [disease, problem or type of people]‘. Outcomes should only be

listed here if the review was restricted to specific outcomes.

Data collection and analysis: This should be restricted to how data were extracted and assessed,

and not include details of what data were extracted. This section should cover whether extraction

and quality assessment of studies were done by more than one person.

Main results: This section should begin with the total number of trials and participants included in

the review, and brief details pertinent to the interpretation of the results. It should address the

primary objective and be restricted to the main qualitative and quantitative results (generally

including not more than six key results). The outcomes included should be selected on the basis of

which are most likely to help someone making a decision about whether or not to use a particular

intervention. Adverse effects should be included if these are covered in the review.

Authors’ conclusions: The primary purpose of the review should be to present information, rather

than to offer advice. The Authors’ conclusions should be succinct and drawn directly from the

findings of the review so that they directly and obviously reflect the main results. Any important

limitations of data and analyses should be noted. Important conclusions about the implications for

research should be included if these are not obvious.

17

EN CLASE:

1. Discutir la estructura del género Revisión Sistemática en odontología. 2. Discutir acerca de la importancia de conocer la estructura retórica de

los géneros discursivos odontológicos en el contexto de la OBE.

DESPUÉS DE CLASE:

1. Ver video de la semana 5 (disponible en la página web de la profesora). 2. Avanzar con la asignación a entregar la semana 9.



Objetivo 1.2: Marcadores textuales en artículos científicos en inglés.

Contenidos 1.2.4: Marcadores textuales en artículos científicos en inglés.


PREVIO A CLASE:

1. Leer el texto titulados: 1.1 Table 1, Fraser´s Model.

2. Ver la tabla de lexical bundles ubicada luego del Modelo de Fraser.

18

Tomado de: Ahmad, M. & Mohammad, G. (2015). Analysis of Contrastive Discourse Markers

Implementation in ESP Books of Computer Science Developed by Non-native (Iranian) and Native

(British) Authors. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2 (6), pp. 128-144.

19

Table 3Lexical bundles in research article introduction moves. The superscript numbers indicate the number of steps in which the bundle was identified.

Move 1 Step 1: Claimingrelevance of field

a great deal of,As one of the,In a variety of,is one of the most,one of the major,one of the most important,one of the most,Play an important role in the,The importance of the

a wide range of3,a wide variety of2,An analysis of the2,In the field of3,The relationshipbetween the3

Step 2: making topicgeneralizations

a function of the,an understanding of the,as a measure of,as well as in,as well as the,for a variety of,has been shown to,has been shown to be,have been shown to,in the use of,in terms of the,it has been shown that,it is well known that,the development of the,the presence of the,the use of a,there has been a,to the development of,to the extent that

a great deal of2,are more likely to2,as a result of2,at the same time2,at the time of2,have been shown to be2,in a number of ways2,in relation to the2,in the absence of3,in the case of5,in the context of4,in the field of3,in the form of2,in the presence of3,is based on the3,it is difficult to2,it is possible to2,on the basis of2,

on the other hand2,on the use of the2,play a role in2,that there is a,the degree to which3,the effects of the2,the fact that the2,the nature of the2,the use of the2,the ways in which2,to the use of3

Step 3: reviewing itemsof previous literature

are likely to be,as a result of the,at the end of,in a number of,by the presence of the,in the development of,in the use of the,it has been suggested that,it was found that the,referred to as the,studies have shown that,the impact of the,the size of the,the structure of the,with the use of

a wide variety of2,are more likely to2,as a function of the2,as a result of2,as well as in the3,at the time of2,can be used to2,for the first time3,have been shown to be2,in addition to the2,in the absence of3,in the case of5,in the case of the2,in the context of the2,in the field of3,

in the form of2,in the presence of3,is related to the2,on the basis of the2,play a role in2,the fact that the2,the value of the2,to the use of3,

Move 2 Step 1A: indicating a gapStep 1B: adding to whatis known

it is necessary to,it should be noted that,the effect of the,

is known about the2,little is known about the2,the degree to which3,in the context of4,it is difficult to2,

the relationshipbetween the3,there is a need to2,there are a number of2,with respect to the2

Step 2: presentingpositive justification

a better understanding of,a better understanding of the,

is known about the2,little is known about the2,there is a need to2

Move 3 Step 1: announcing presentresearch descriptively and/orpurposefully

of this study was to,the purpose of the presentstudy was to,the aim of this paper is to,the aim of this study,in this paper we,the objective of this paper is to,the objectives of this study were,the objective of this study wasto evaluate the,the purpose of this study is to,the purpose of this paper is to,the purpose of this study was to,to determine the effects of,used in this study,we show that the

an analysis of the2,for the first time3,in addition to the2,in the context of4

in the context of the2,in the present study2,it is possible to2,is based on the3,is related to the2,on the basis of the2,on the use of the2,the effects of the2,the nature of the2,the performance of the2,the use of the2,the ways in which2,to the use of3,

V. Cortes / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 12 (2013) 33–43 39

20

Step 2: presenting R Q’s orhypotheses

there are a number of2,in the case of5,

V. Cortes / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 12 (2013) 33–4340

Step 3: definitional clarifications as well as in the3,on the other hand2,

Mo

Mo

Inanalyzresearappeaoccurrmay h

Thbundlwhichhowevin itsediscoubundl

Inreseardiscou

the degree to which3,

Step 4: summarizing methods a wide range of3,2

in the presence of3,2
as a function of the ,
as well as in the3,2

in the present study ,on the basis of2,

3
at the same time ,in the absence of3,
is based on the ,the relationship

in the case of5,in the case of the2,in the context of4,

between the3,the rest of the2,

Step 5: announcingprincipal outcomes

an increase in the,the results of the,

in the case of5,in relation to the2,with respect to the2

Step 6: stating the valueof the present research

in the sense that the, a wide range of3,can be used to2,for the first time3,in a number of ways2,the value of the2

Step 7: outlining thestructure of the paper

are presented in section,at the end of the,in the next section,the paper is organized

the performance of the2,the rest of the2,

as follows,this paper is organizedas follows,
the remainder of the paperis organized as follows,the remainder of this paperis organized as follows,
ve 3 step 1, announcing present research descriptively and/or purposefully

Ex. 4. In this paper, we examine the same question in the context of arbitrary hierarchies that are consistent with thetechnology. (Economics)

ve 3 step 4 summarizing methods

Ex. 5. The present research tests the two explanations in the context of a real-life case. (Communication studies)

order to have more reliable bundle-move connection identification, 50% of the occurrences of the bundles wereed and classified into moves and steps by a second researcher. The comparison showed 99% of agreement betweenchers for moves and 92% for steps in moves. The main cause of disagreement lied in the fact that some lexical bundlesred in sentences that may represent more than one step and this was recorded differently by each analyst. When thised, the use of the bundle under analysis was revised and the bundle was re-classified as occurring in the two steps thatave caused the mismatch.e reason for longer bundles (lexical bundles with five or more words) to be used in only one move is simple: longeres contain more lexical words within their composition which help them be more informational than shorter bundles,aremainlymade up of functionwords that surround a central lexicalword, such as a noun. The nouns in shorter bundles,er, are inmost cases shell nouns (Aktas&Cortes, 2008; Schmid, 2000), a typeof abstract noun thathas little or nomeaninglf, particularly when used in academic discourse. The content of these nouns can often be found in the surroundingrse, in preceding clauses or in succeeding phrases or noun complement clauses. That is the case of the nouns in lexicales such as the fact that the, in which the noun fact is used as a shell noun, as shown in the following example:

Ex. 6. The three-fold distinction in the types of publication reflects the fact that the readers of the journals are researchersand/or practitioners.(Applied Linguistics)

example 6, the fact is realized in the noun complement clause following the noun (the readers of the journals arechers and/or practitioners). The shell noun fact is encapsulating the meaning that is explained in the succeedingrse.

the rest of the paper isorganized as follows,the rest of this paperis organized as follow

21

725 Zahra Sadat Jalali and M.Raouf Moini / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 98 ( 2014 ) 719 – 726

Martinez, I. (2003). Aspects of theme in the method and discussion sections of biology journal articles in English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(2), 103–123.

Oakey D. (2002). Formulaic language in English academic writing: A corpus-based study of the formal and functional variation of a lexical phrase in different academic disciplines. In R. Reppen, S.M. Fitzmaurice & D. Biber (Eds). Using Corpora to Explore Linguistic Variation (pp.111-129). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Longman.

Parvizi, N. (2011). Identification of discipline-specific lexical bundles in education. Unpublished thesis. University of Kashan. Scott, M. (2008). WordSmith Tools version 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis : English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Valipoor, L. (2010). A corpus-based study of words and bundles in chemistry research articles. Unpublished thesis. University of Kashan. Wang, J., Liang, Sh. & Ge, G. (2008). Establishment of a medical academic word list. English for Specific Purposes 27, 442–458. Appendix A List of whole identified bundles in CIMRA

Lexical bundles No of frequency

No of texts

Lexical bundles No of frequency

No of texts

1 The aim of the 41 41 82 in a number of 11 11 2 aim of the present 37 37 83 in the field of 11 11 3 study was to evaluate 29 29 84 the central nervous system 11 11 4 of this study were 27 27 85 the most widely used 11 11 5 was to evaluate the 26 26 86 to determine whether the 11 11 6 study was to investigate 25 24 87 To our knowledge, no 11 11 7 The objective of this 24 24 88 a central role in 10 9 8 study was to assess 22 22 89 associated with an increased 10 10 9 have been associated with 21 19 90 been associated with increased 10 9 10 have been found to 21 19 91 Centers for Disease Control 10 10 11 in the pathogenesis of 21 18 92 examined the effects of 10 9 12 is considered to be 21 20 93 for the detection of 10 8 13 was to assess the 21 21 94 has been used to 10 10 14 study was to determine 20 20 95 In a recent study 10 9 15 been found to be 19 19 96 in patients treated with 10 7 16 is the most common 19 19 97 in the United Kingdom 10 9 17 The purpose of the 19 17 98 investigated the effect of 10 10 18 Goals of This Investigation 18 18 99 is thought to be 10 10 19 little is known about 18 18 100 it is necessary to 10 9 20 objective of this study 18 18 101 mortality in patients with 10 9 21 was to investigate the 18 17 102 of Health and Human 10 9 22 in the management of 17 15 103 of the most important 10 10 23 in vitro and in 17 17 104 studies have focused on 10 10 24 have been used to 16 16 105 studies have suggested that 10 10 25 in the U.S 16 11 106 the degree to which 10 10 26 is known about the 16 16 107 the relationship between the 10 10 27 It was hypothesized that 16 11 108 the United States and 10 10 28 number of studies have 16 16 109 with an increased risk 10 9 29 this study were to 16 16 110 with the development of 10 9 30 a number of studies 15 15 111 a key role in 9 9 31 is associated with increased 15 14 112 a leading cause of 9 9 32 related quality of life 15 15 113 a major cause of 9 9 33 study was to compare 15 15 114 been shown to have 9 9 34 a better understanding of 14 13 115 cause of death in 9 9 35 also been shown to 14 14 116 considered to be a 9 9 36 and the use of 14 14 117 for Disease Control and 9 9 37 has been found to 14 12 118 However, little is known 9 9 38 Health related quality of 14 14 119 in a group of 9 9 39 in the form of 14 14 120 in the oral cavity 9 8 40 of morbidity and mortality 14 13 121 In this paper, we 9 8 41 of the most common 14 13 122 is believed to be 9 8 42 study was to examine 14 14 123 is characterized by a 9 9

22

726 Zahra Sadat Jalali and M.Raouf Moini / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 98 ( 2014 ) 719 – 726

43 test the hypothesis that 14 14 124 may be involved in 9 8 44 The aims of this 14 14 125 of coronary artery disease 9 7 45 vitro and in vivo 14 14 126 of the relationship between 9 8 46 was to determine the 14 14 127 of the study was 9 8 47 a risk factor for 13 12 128 on the use of 9 9 48 for the evaluation of 13 11 129 quality of life in 9 7 49 has been demonstrated in 13 12 130 shown to be associated 9 8 50 have been reported to 13 12 131 The goal of this 9 9 51 It has also been 13 11 132 the gold standard for 9 9 52 leading cause of death 13 11 133 the most commonly used 9 9 53 the mechanical properties of 13 5 134 The primary aim of 9 9 54 this study is to 13 13 135 to be an important 9 9 55 was to examine the 13 13 136 a crucial role in 8 8 56 aims of this study 12 12 137 a limited number of 8 8 57 are less likely to 12 9 138 an increased risk for 8 7 58 in a variety of 12 11 139 and quality of life 8 7 59 in an attempt to 12 12 140 and the development of 8 8 60 increase the risk of 12 11 141 are considered to be 8 8 61 objectives of this study 12 12 142 as a consequence of 8 8 62 of our study was 12 12 143 associated with the development 8 7 63 one of the main 12 11 144 be associated with a 8 7 64 our study was to 12 12 145 cause of morbidity and 8 7 65 purpose of the present 12 12 146 considered to be the 8 8 66 study was designed to 12 12 147 has been linked to 8 7 67 The aim of our 12 11 148 have been reported in 8 8 68 the leading cause of 12 12 149 have been used in 8 8 69 to be effective in 12 11 150 in patients with acute 8 7 70 to be the most 12 11 151 in patients with diabetes 8 6 71 to test the hypothesis 12 12 152 in relation to the 8 8 72 was to compare the 12 12 153 is associated with the 8 8 73 a great deal of 11 11 154 is known to be 8 8 74 a major role in 11 10 155 is reported to be 8 8 75 a member of the 11 10 156 Our hypothesis was that 8 8 76 a wide variety of 11 11 157 reduce the incidence of 8 8 77 and the presence of 11 10 158 the study was to 8 8 78 as well as to 11 11 159 to the pathogenesis of 8 5 79 be involved in the 11 10 160 was reported to be 8 7 80 Department of Health and 11 9 161 was to determine whether 8 8 81 has been used in 11 10

23

EN CLASE:

1. Discutir acerca de la función de los marcadores textuales para la comprensión de textos científicos.

2. Comprender la noción y utilidad de ‘lexical bundles’ como marcadores discursivos en artículos científicos odontológicos.

3. Identificar marcadores textuales en los movimientos de la Introducción de un artículo de investigación.

DESPUÉS DE CLASE: 1. Ver video de la semana 6 (disponible en la página web de la profesora). 2. Avanzar con la asignación a entregar la semana 9. 3. Seleccionar un artículo de investigación en inglés relacionado con su

proyecto y prepararlo para llevarlo impreso a la siguiente clase.





PREVIO A CLASE: 1. Repasar lo estudiado en la clase anterior. 2. Preparar un artículo de estructura IMRAD para traer a clase.

EN CLASE: 1. Ejercitar la identificación de marcadores textuales, lexical bundles y

conectores como estrategia para la comprensión de textos científicos en inglés.

2. Identificar marcadores textuales en las secciones de introducción y materiales y métodos. Discutir acerca de la función de estos y cómo le ayuda a comprender el texto en inglés.

24

DESPUÉS DE CLASE: 1. Ver video de la semana 7 (disponible en la página web de la profesora). 2. Avanzar con la asignación a entregar la semana 9. 3. Seleccionar un artículo de investigación en inglés relacionado con su

proyecto y prepararlo para llevarlo impreso a la siguiente clase (puede ser el mismo que ha estado trabajando).





PREVIO A CLASE:

1. Repasar acerca de marcadores textuales y lexical bundles. 2. Leer el texto

Inferential Discourse Markers in Discussion Section of Psychology

Research Articles across English and Persian

Apparently, due to the theoretical differences and various background assumptions, no

single definition for DM seems to favor a general acceptance among the researchers. Variation of

semantic and syntactic properties of these expressions has ended in diversity of ideas among the

researchers. Such disagreements highlight the existence of various perspectives and frameworks

in which DMs are considered. Under the influence of particular viewpoints, different scholars

represent discourse connections under various labels. Ostman (1995) suggested „pragmatic

particles‟ as he believed in their ability to better display the flexibility of these items. Besides,

sentence connectives (Halliday & Hasan, 1976), cue phrases (Groze & Sidner, 1986) as devices to

direct the hearer to some aspects of change in the discourse structure, discourse particles

(Schourup, 1999), and discourse operators (Redeker, 1991) were among the other proposed

ideas.Following Blakemore (2002), they were treated as „ discourse markers‟ to entail the idea

that these words lack any type of propositional meaning and suggested that their function be

analyzed in terms of what they mark rather than what they describe. p. 1787

25

EN CLASE:

1. Ejercitar la identificación de marcadores textuales y lexical bundles como estrategia para la comprensión de textos científicos en inglés.

2. Identificar marcadores textuales en las secciones de discusión y conclusiones.

DESPUÉS DE CLASE:

1. Finalizar la evaluación a entregar en la semana 9. 2. Ver video de la semana 8 (disponible en la página web de la profesora).




Semana 9 Clases planificadas: 5 Clases restantes: 1 Evaluación: Sumativa

The findings of this study are indicative of the fact that individual inferential discourse

markers are employed by the writers with different degrees of occurrence. Accordingly,

„therefore‟ was the most frequently used, followed by „thus‟, „because of this‟, and

“consequently‟. p. 1790

Although teachers need not spend significant parts of their class time teaching these

discourse markers, there is a need to make learners aware of these markers and their

pragmatic functions. p. 1790

Tomado de: Kaveifard , E. Allami, H. (2011). Inferential Discourse Markers in Discussion

Section of Psychology Research Articles across English and Persian . Theory and Practice in

Language Studies, Vol. 1, No. 12, pp. 1786-1791.

26

PREVIO A CLASE:

1. Finalizar la actividad evaluada usando para ello las estrategias utilizadas hasta ahora.

EN CLASE:

1. Evaluación escrita

DESPUÉS DE CLASE:

1. Ejercitar la identificación de marcadores textuales en diferentes géneros discursivos odontológicos.

2. Seleccionar tres de artículos en inglés que está usando para su proyecto y traerlos a clase siguiente.





PREVIO A CLASE:

1. Ejercitar la identificación de marcadores textuales en diferentes géneros discursivos odontológicos.

2. Seleccionar tres de artículos en inglés que está usando para su proyecto y traerlos a clase siguiente.

3. Repasar los contenidos del objetivo 1.2.4 vistos hasta ahora (se recomienda ver videos de las semanas 6,7 y 8).

EN CLASE:

1. Repaso general sobre marcadores textuales y comprensión lectora.

27

DESPUÉS DE CLASE:

1. Leer el texto titulado: Use of statistical methods in dental research: comparison of four dental journals during a 10-year period.

2. Revisar la lista de lexical boundles para la sección de resultados. 3. Investigar simbología estadística.


Objetivo 1.3: Identificar las estrategias de lectura adecuadas para la lectura de resultados y discusión de los mismos en un artículo científico.

Contenidos 1.3.1: Lectura de la sección de resultados en un artículo de investigación.


PREVIO A CLASE:

1. Leer el texto titulado: Use of statistical methods in dental research: comparison of four dental journals during a 10-year period.

2. Revisar la lista de lexical boundles para la sección de resultados. 3. Investigar simbología estadística 4. Seleccionar artículos para su lectura en clase.

28

Acta Odontol Scand. 2009;67(4):206-11. doi: 10.1080/00016350902837922.

Use of statistical methods in dental research: comparison of four dental journals during a 10-year period.

Vähänikkilä H1, Nieminen P, Miettunen J, Larmas M. Author information Abstract OBJECTIVE:

To investigate development of the use of statistical methods in dental journals in 1996, 2001,

and 2006 hypothesizing that methods are becoming more sophisticated.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

All original research articles in four dental journals in 1996, 2001, and 2006 were reviewed:

Journal of Dental Research (JDR), Caries Research (CR), Community Dentistry and Oral

Epidemiology (CDOE) and Acta Odontologica Scandinavica (AOS). Evaluation covered 928

articles reporting original research findings based on systematic collection and statistical

analysis of research data. Aspects measured were: research design, statistical methodology,

description of procedures, and presentation of results. Percentage frequencies of reported

statistical procedures were compared between journals and between years.

RESULTS:

The main findings of the study are: 1) that use of multivariate or specific methods did not

increase from 1996 to 2006, 2) that traditional statistical significance testing is still widely used

in dental journals and that use of confidence intervals increased in the period 1996 to 2006, 3)

that statistical procedures are usually extensively described, and 4) that dental journals have

different profiles in their statistical content.

CONCLUSIONS:

The authors of articles in dental journals might apply these results when designing their dental

research, i.e. to use statistical methods and to present results in line with the policy and

presentation of the leading dental journals.

29

EN CLASE:

1. Discutir Acerca de la forma de presentación de los resultados en un artículo de investigación.

2. Discutir acerca de lexical boundles y su utilidad para la lectura de la sección de resultados.

3. Hacer la lectura de la sección de resultados en artículos traídos por los estudiantes.

DESPUÉS DE CLASE:

1. Seleccionar artículos científicos impresos con la estructura IMRaD / IMRyD, de los que está usando en su investigación.


Objetivo 1.3: Identificar las estrategias de lectura adecuadas para la lectura de resultados y discusión de los mismos en un artículo científico.

Contenidos 1.3.1: Lectura de la sección de resultados en un artículo de investigación.


30

PREVIO A CLASE:

1. Seleccionar artículos científicos impresos con la estructura IMRaD / IMRyD, de los que está usando en su investigación.

EN CLASE:

1. Realizar la lectura de la sección de resultados en los artículos traídos.

DESPUÉS DE CLASE:

1. Leer el texto titulado How to read a CS Research Paper (Fung, 2004)

Unidad II

Objetivo 2.4: Extraer información específica para su inclusión del marco teórico

de una investigación. Contenidos 2.4.1: Paper review: lectura analítica de un artículo de investigación.

Semana 13 Clases planificadas: 2 Clases restantes: 1 Evaluación:

PREVIO A CLASE:

1. Leer el texto titulado How to read a CS Research Paper (Fung, 2004)

31

How to Read a CS Research Paper?

Philip W. L. Fong

July 15, 2004

This article highlights some points a young researcher should bear in mind when readinga CS research paper.

1 Comprehension

The first lesson to reading research paper is learning to understand what a paper says. Acommon pitfall for a beginner is to focus solely on the technicalities. Yes, technical contentsare very important, but they are in no way the only focus of a careful reading. In general,you should ask yourself the following four questions when you are reading a research paper.

1. What is the research problem the paper attempts to address? What is themotivation of the research work? Is there a crisis in the research field that the paperattempts to resolve? Is the research work attempting to overcome the weaknesses ofexisting approaches? Is an existing research paradigm challenged? In short, what isthe niche of the paper?

2. What are the claimed contributions of the paper? What is new in this paper?A new question is asked? A new understanding of the research problem? A newmethodology for solving problems? A new algorithm? A new breed of software tools orsystems? A new experimental method? A new proof technique? A new formalism ornotation? A new evidence to substantiate or disprove a previously published claim? Anew research area? In short, what is original about this paper?

3. How do the authors substantiate their claims? What is the methodology adoptedto substantiate the claims? What is the argument of the paper? What are the majortheorems? What experiments are conducted? Data analyses? Simulations? Bench-marks? User studies? Case studies? Examples? In short, what makes the claimsscientific (as opposed to being mere opinions1)?

4. What are the conclusions? What have we learned from the paper? Shall thestandard practice of the field be changed as a result of the new findings? Is the result

1Alternatively, what makes it a research paper rather than a science fiction?

1

32

generalizable? Can the result be applied to other areas of the field? What are the openproblems? In short, what are the lessons one can learn from the paper?

Every well-written research paper contains an abstract, which is a summary of the paper.The role of an abstract is to outline the answers to the above questions. Look therefore, firstto the abstract for answers. The paper should be an elaboration of the abstract.

Another way of looking at paper reading is that every good paper tells a story. Conse-quently, when you read a paper, ask yourself, “What is the plot?” The four questions listedabove make up an archetypical plot structure for every research paper.

2 Evaluation

An integral component of scholarship is to be critical of scientific claims. Fancy claimsare usually easy to make but difficult to substantiate. Solid scholarship involves carefulvalidation of scientific claims. Reading research paper is therefore an exercise of criticalthinking.

1. Is the research problem significant? Is the work scratching minor itches? Arethe authors solving artificial problems (aka strawman)? Does the work enable practicalapplications, deepen understanding, or explore new design space?

2. Are the contributions significant? Is the paper worth reading? Are the authorssimply repeating the state of the art? Are there real surprises? Are the authors aware ofthe relation of their work to existing literature2? Is the paper addressing a well-knownopen problem?

3. Are the claims valid? Have the authors been cutting corners (intentionally or un-intentionally)? Has the right theorem been proven? Errors in proofs? Problematicexperimental setup? Confounding factors? Unrealistic, artificial benchmarks? Com-paring apples and oranges? Methodological misunderstanding? Do the numbers addup? Are the generalizations valid? Are the claims modest enough?

3 Synthesis

Creativity does not arise from the void. Interacting with the scholarly community throughreading reseach papers is one of the most effective way for generating novel research agendas.When you read a research paper, you should see it as an opportunity for you to come upwith new research projects. The following is a list of questions you can ask to help in thisdirection. (Of course, this list is not supposed to be exhaustive.)

2Be very sceptical of work that is so “novel” that it bears no relation to any existing work, builds uponno existing paradigm, and yet addresses a research problem so significant that it promises to transform theworld. Such are the signs that the author might not be aware of existing literature on the topic. In such acase, the authors could very well be simply repeating works that have already been done decades ago.

2

33

• What is the crux of the research problem?

• What are some alternative approaches to address the research problem?

• What is a better way to substantiate the claim of the authors?

• What is a good argument against the case made by the authors?

• How can the research results be improved?

• Can the research results be applied to another context?

• What are the open problems raised by this work?

• Bottomline: Can we do better than the authors?

4 Paper Review

A paper review is a short essay (3–4 pages) reporting what you have learned from reading aresearch paper. Writing reviews for the papers you have read is a great way to sharpen yourpaper reading skills. Such a review is typically structured in three sections — summary,evalution, and synthesis.

1. Summary. Give a brief summary of the work in your own words. This sectiondemonstrates your understanding of the paper, and as such it should answer the fourquestions outlined in Section 1. It is imperative that you use your own words tosummarize the paper. Another way to think of it is that you are writing an alternative,elaborate abstract for the paper.

2. Evaluation. Evaluate the work by answering the questions outlined in Section 2.Learn to be fair: point out both the strengths and weaknesses of the work. If youare reading a classical paper that has been published for a while, make sure you arereading the paper in the right historical context: What seems to be obvious now mighthave been ground-breaking then.

3. Synthesis. Generate any interesting thoughts you have on the work by consulting thelist of questions in Section 3.

5 Related Work

The classic by Adler and van Doren [1] provides lots of wisdom on how to read a book. Theguide by Murphy and Griswold also provides a helpful introduction to reading an engineeringresearch paper [3].

When a research paper is submitted to a conference or a journal, it will undergo a peerreview process, in which the paper is subject to the intense scrutiny of peer researchers. The

3

34

referees who review the submitted paper will read the paper in more or less the same way aswe outlined in Sections 1 and 2, and then they will write up a referee report in a style similarto the paper review discussed in Section 4. Based on the referee reports, the program chairof a conference or the editor of a journal will then make the decision of whether to acceptthe paper. It is therefore instructional to understand how a referee go about reviewing apaper, and learn to read research papers like a professional. A very good introduction to thesubject can be found in an article by Smith [5]. The paper is slanted towards experimentalcomputer science. For a perpective focusing on theoretical computer science, consult thearticle by Parberry [4]. See also [2].

References

[1] Mortimer J. Adler and Charles van Doren. How to Read a Book. Simon and SchusterTrade, 1980.

[2] Allen S. Lee. Reviewing a manuscript for publication.http://www.people.vcu.edu/~aslee/referee.html.

[3] Gail Murphy and Bill Griswold. How to read an engineering research paper.http://www.cs.ubc.ca/ murphy/cpsc507/winter02/documents/reading-eval.htm.

[4] Ian Parberry. A guide for new referees in theoretical computer science. Information andComputation, 112(1):96–116, 1994.

[5] Alan Jay Smith. The task of the referee. IEEE Computer, 23(4):65–71, April 1990.

4

35

EN CLASE:

1. Hacer la lectura del artículo titulado: Erosive effects of pediatric liquid medicinal syrups on primary enamel: An in vitro comparative study, siguiendo los lineamientos de Fung para Comprehension y Evaluation.

36

DESPUÉS DE CLASE:

1. Repasar lo trabajado en clase.

Unidad II (Continuación)

Objetivo 2.4: Extraer información específica para su inclusión del marco teórico

de una investigación. Contenidos 2.4.1: Paper review: lectura analítica de un artículo de investigación.


PREVIO A CLASE:

1. Repasar lo discutido en la clase anterior.

EN CLASE:

1. Continuar la lectura del artículo titulado: Erosive effects of pediatric liquid medicinal syrups on primary enamel: An in vitro comparative study, siguiendo los lineamientos de Fung para realizar la Synthesis.

2. Elaborar el resumen de la lectura realizada según los pasos analizados en clase.

DESPUÉS DE CLASE:

1. Ver video de la semana 13 (si lo considera necesario). 2. Ejercitar lo aprendido con otros artículos que deba incluir como

antecedentes en su proyecto.

39


Objetivo 2.5: Analizar el uso de traductores electrónicos como herramienta para la

lectura y traducción de textos científicos

Contenidos 2.5.1: Traductores electrónicos


PREVIO A CLASE:

1. Leer el material titulado Uso de traductores electrónicos.

Uso de traductores electrónicos

Los traductores electrónicos pueden constituir una gran ayuda para el investigador, pero si

no se usan de forma adecuada pueden también ser un obstáculo en el procesamiento de textos

en lengua extranjera. Es necesario ejercitar el uso adecuado de los traductores electrónicos

(online y offline) a fin de usarlos de forma óptima.

Algunas sugerencias a fin de optimizar el uso de los traductores son:

Pruebe varios traductores con el mismo texto a fin de observar cuál de ellos produce una

mejor traducción. En clase se sugirieron varios traductores gratuitos, entre ellos se

encuentran los que hacen la traducción directamente (www.elmundo.es/traductor, por

ejemplo) y los que redireccionan al usuario a otros sitios donde pueden obtener su

traducción. Cuando haga estas pruebas verifique que el software de traducción

empleado por cada sitio web sea diferente. Por ejemplo, El mundo es potenciado por

REVERSO,

Introduzca la selección de texto a traducir. Se recomienda traducir por párrafos

pequeños a fin de que el usuario pueda verificar de una mejor manera la calidad del

texto traducido. Este ejercicio se hace con al menos dos traductores de forma

simultánea.

Existen sitios que nos recomiendan diferentes traductores, por ejemplo

http://www.cuervoblanco.com/traductor.html a través del cual encontramos acceso a traductores

como freetranslation y ajax, entre otros; así como a diccionarios electrónicos.

Observe el ejemplo que sigue. Se tomó un texto y se tradujo en el mundo, luego se tomó

el mismo texto y se trabajó con otro traductor. Comparen los resultados.

40

http://www.elmundo.es/traductor

http://www.cuervoblanco.com/traductor.html

Observe en este caso que GUMS (encías) se traduce como ‘las gomas’ y hay palabras

como ‘flossing’ y ‘treatable’ que no llegan a ser traducidas.

Ahora, se usó http://www.freetranslation.com/. Se observa que hay deficiencias en la

traducción, en este caso tanto léxicas como sintácticas. Por ejemplo, al producir la siguiente

traducción: ‘Causa generalmente que tejido de goma hinchese, la vuelta roja y sangre

fácilmente’.

41

http://www.freetranslation.com/

Esta última traducción se hizo con http://www.ajaxtrans.com/index.es.php. Se puede

observar que se superan problemas de léxico y se obtiene un mejor resultado aunque persisten

algunos problemas de concordancia gramatical.

Es importante recordar que no hay un traductor electrónico perfecto. Siempre

presentarán detalles para que el usuario los arregle. Lo recomendable es usar más de

un traductor para el mismo texto (como señalara con antelación) y seleccionar aquellos

que más se ajustan a nuestras necesidades. Además se aconseja seleccionar un

traductor offline (instalable o no) para poder hacer traducciones aún si no se cuenta con

acceso a la Internet.

Traducción de páginas y sitios web completos

Los traductores electrónicos tienen varias aplicaciones de utilidad. Entre ellas se

encuentra la traducción de sitios web completos. Se recomienda usar ésta cuando se quiere

hacer una revisión general del contenido de la página. Es uso y calidad de esta aplicación varía

de traductor a traductor.

Para hacer uso de este servicio se presiona (hace ‘click’) en la pestaña correspondiente:

‘web translation’, ‘página web’ o similar (dependiendo del traductor) y se observa el espacio

para ‘pegar’ o escribir la dirección del sitio que se desea traducir.

Google presenta una opción directa desde su buscador. Ésta consiste en un vínculo al

lado derecho de los resultados de la búsqueda que permite la opción ‘traducir esta página’; sin

embargo, se sugiere usar otros traductores para contrastar resultados y elegir entre los mejores

al igual que se hace con extractos de un texto.

42

http://www.ajaxtrans.com/index.es.php

Vean el siguiente ejemplo. Se desea leer el contenido de este sitio:

43

Se copia la dirección en el portapapeles y se pega en la sección destinada para ello en

el traductor.

44

Se selecciona luego el idioma origen y el idioma en el que se desea traducir.

Y se obtiene lo siguiente:

45

Aunque cada traductor presentará sus opciones de forma diferente, funcionan

básicamente de la misma manera, pero no necesariamente con la misma calidad de resultados.

Se sugiere entonces usar al menos dos traductores potenciados por software diferente para

hacer este tipo de traducciones.

IMPORTANTE:

Recuerde que toda traducción proveniente de recursos electrónicos siempre necesitará

de la revisión humana a fin de obtener un texto de calidad, que pueda ser utilizado con

propósito de investigación.

Sugerencia para optimizar las traducciones en línea

1. Ingrese sustantivos singulares y verbos en la forma infinitivo (pero al redactar en español vuelva a colocarlos en plural y en el caso de los verbos, en el tiempo verbal correspondiente).

EN CLASE:

1. Discusión acerca del uso y utilidad de los traductores electrónicos en el contexto de la investigación odontológica.

2. Indicaciones para la evaluación de la unidad 2.

DESPUÉS DE CLASE:

1. Ver video de la clase (ubicarlo en la página web de la profesora). 2. Realizar la actividad evaluada según las instrucciones.

46


Objetivo 2.5: Analizar el uso de traductores electrónicos como herramienta para la

lectura y traducción de textos científicos

Contenidos 2.5.1: Traductores electrónicos


PREVIO A CLASE: Seleccionar el artículo para su resumen analítico de un artículo de investigación con la ayuda un traductor electrónico.

EN CLASE:

Evaluación

47

new investigación biopatológica, clínica y operativa...

Documents