Eval of Oncology Article in Translational Oncology.

Critical Appraisal of a Peer-Reviewed Article in Translational Oncology

Answered

Assignment Type and Description

Assignment title : Critical appraisal of a peer-reviewed article in the field of translational oncology

Assignment type and description

Each student will be provided with a peer-reviewed original article published in the field of translational oncology. The students will be required to critically appraise the article, examining the article for form, clarity, rational design, scientific content, data integrity, reliability and the derivation of evidence-based conclusions. This will train the student how to review manuscripts and what is required in the preparation of high-quality research articles for publication.

Note: this assessment is supported by two formative assignments earlier in the semester using a different paper (see module timeline and assessment seminar slides/Panopto recording for more details).

References, Figures/tables, and Figure/table legends do not count towards word count.

Please note that for summative assessed work we will normally not mark beyond the stipulated assignment length, and an erroneous statement of word count could be considered as unfair means. See the UCoP assessment procedures for further details

2pm, Thursday 09^th December 2021

Please note that penalties will be automatically imposed for late submission – within 24 hours of the deadline: 10% reduction; after 24 hours but within 5 working days days of the deadline: 10% reduction or reduction to the pass mark (whichever is lower mark); after 5 working days of deadline: zero marks. See the UCoP assessment procedures for further details. If you cannot meet this deadline and have supporting evidence why you cannot, you must apply for mitigating circumstances with the FHS Hub

The assignment should be saved as a .pdf file or .docx file and submitted via the module site on Canvas

Critically appraise the role of molecular diagnostics, pathology and imaging in cancer screening and
Identify, interpret, integrate and critically analyse literature pertinent to the area of molecular oncology and integrate effectively with own ideas

You must use third, person past tense writing style. Do not use the words ‘I’, or ‘we’ and don’t write in bullet form as a substitute for this style of writing. Your writing still needs to be descriptive and in complete sentences but still within the confines of the correct scientific style. Don’t use informal adjectives such as ‘disgusting, massive, messy, stinky’ etc. Be as professional and as you can and substantiate your work with peer-reviewed resources. Use feedback from the formative assignments and other written assignments, as well as referring to the materials provided and tutorials and feedback sessions. Finally, look at the grading criteria (attached at the end of the document).

Do not share your work with others and make sure that you re-word information from the sources you have well also still citing them in text. Failure to cite material, not adequately re-wording information and copying information could be considered for academic misconduct. Be sure to re-word the legends for these, while acknowledging the original reference source, where appropriate.

The assignment will be assessed against the criteria for coursework essays supplied at the end of this document and marked using Faculty’s categorical marking scheme.

Marking will be checked and validated by a second marker following procedures approved by the University and described in the university’s quality handbook.

Any penalties for late submission, exceeding the word limit, or academic misconduct, will be applied after marking is complete.

Correct and consistent grammar, punctuation and spelling should be used throughout your
You should use the Harvard referencing style prescribed by the university a copy of which can be found on the Module Canvas page>Modules>
The assignment should be written in the third person past tense
Use tables and figures to help communicate and summarise the information you have found. It is advised to use supporting figures and tables in this

Academic misconduct and plagiarism are not acceptable and are subject to strict penalties. When you submit any piece of work for assessment you are required to agree to a declaration regarding use of academic misconduct. It is your responsibility to ensure that you have understood the guidance you have been given about referencing and academic misconduct. If you have any doubts you must seek advice from your Academic Support Tutor or the module manager.

Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health Science makes use of plagiarism and collusion (copying work from other students) detection software for all assignments (TurnItIn) to assist manual methods for detection of poor academic practice.

Please make sure that you are familiar with this information and the associated penalties. If you are experiencing difficulties accessing this information, please ask your module leader for help.

Exemplary Distinction	The work represents an exemplary response to the task set and attains the very highest standards of scholarship (authoritative and publishable) that can be expected of a level 7 submission.	98	As for 95, plus further detailed and extensive critical comparison with other articles.
		95	As for 92, plus extensive comparison with other articles.
		92	Comprehensive and thorough summary of the ideas in the article, showing overwhelming evidence of understanding, and overwhelming evidence of an ability to sort and order information in a logical and coherent way. Impeccable use of English, extremely well presented. Provides an excellent wider context for the article, and applies more critical analysis than for 85. Includes valid comparisons with similar appropriately chosen and relevant texts, as well as scrutinizing the shortcomings of the article. Excellent choice of evidence from the article supporting description of ideas in the critical appraisal.
Distinction	The work represents a very good to excellent response to the task set, mostly attains the highest standards of scholarship that can be expected of a Level 7 submission and shows potential to influence the discipline or area of practice.	88	As for 85, but may include more critical analysis, better presentation, more comprehensive wider context.
		85	Comprehensive summary of the ideas in the article, showing strong and consistent evidence of understanding, and a strong and consistent ability to interpret, sort and order information in a coherent way. Excellent use of English, very well presented. Provides a wider context for the article, and may include comparisons with similar appropriately chosen and relevant texts, as well as identifying and describing the shortcomings of the article. Very good use of evidence from the article supporting description of ideas in the critical appraisal.
		82	As for 85, but may include less critical analysis, not as good presentation, OR less comprehensive wider context.
		78	As for 75, but may include a better attempt of critical analysis, presentation, and provision of a more comprehensive wider context.
		75	Describes the article in good detail, identifying and displaying understanding of the most important concepts. Uses evidence from the article to support description of ideas. Demonstrates strong ability to sort and order information into a logical line of argument. Well-presented using appropriate academic conventions, and written clearly and concisely. A good attempt to provide a wider context for the article is included.
		72	As for 75, but may not include a successful attempt of critical analysis, presentation, OR provision of a more comprehensive wider context.

Merit	The work represents a good to very good response to the task set, and attains good to very good standards of scholarship.	68	As for 65, but may be better in presentation, detail or clarity of writing, or some use of evidence from the article to support description of ideas.
		65	Describes the article in good detail, and displays understanding of the most important concepts. Demonstrates clear ability to sort and order information into a logical line of argument. Mostly well-presented using appropriate academic conventions, and written clearly and concisely. A sufficient attempt to provide a wider context for the article is included.
		62	As for 65, but may be inferior in presentation, detail or clarity of writing, OR may lack a sufficient attempt to provide a wider context for the article.
Pass	The work represents an adequate to satisfactory response to the task set, with standards of scholarship likely to be undermined by a generally poor linkage of issues and themes within the task set.	58	As for 55, but may attempt to provide a wider context for the article, or use evidence from the article to support description of ideas, or may be more clearly written or include fewer omissions.
		55	Describes the article in sufficient detail, and displays understanding of the most important concepts, but may include important omissions. Writing mostly clear, presentation shows some effort.
		52	As for 55 but may include more omissions, or display less evidence of understanding of the most important concepts, or may not be as well presented.
Marginal Fail	The work represents an unsatisfactory response to the task set. Strengths of the work are outweighed by its weaknesses.	48	As for 48, but writing is clearer.
		45	Fails to describes the article. Does not present a clear structure and lacking enough detail to display good understanding of the concepts. Limited evidence of ability to sort and order information into a logical line of argument. Presentation shows minimum of effort.
		42	Fails to describe the article in sufficient detail, with very limited evidence of understanding of key concepts.
Fail	The work represents a very unsatisfactory response to the task set. Strengths of the work are outweighed by its weaknesses.	35	Contains important misunderstandings, which mean that the concepts in the article have not been communicated sufficiently well.
		25	Little evidence of coverage of topics in the article, perhaps one or two points that are relevant, little evidence that the most important concepts have been understood.
		15	Negligible evidence of coverage of the topics in the article, with omissions in knowledge and understanding.