Bio 209 Fall 2020
Article Analysis 4: News and Views style article about a focus paper, chosen from the folder “Possible Papers”, or on your own. If you would like to choose your own focus paper, be sure to email it to me for approval at least two days before you want to start working on your assignment.
Overview.
Now that you have completed your first N&V article, it is likely that you can gain new insights about the writing process by revisiting our previous assignments, and by revisiting examples of published News and Views articles.
• Remember the importance of carefully crafting the context behind the study, and the strategies for using previous published papers to do so.
• Remind yourself of some of the approaches for extracting interesting ideas and main points from complex scientific research articles.
• Read the News and Views articles as examples of some of the different strategies that authors have used to communicate context and important findings in clear, concise, and engaging ways.
• Review any comments made on your previous N&V assignments, and think about them in the context of the example News and Views publications.
Try to put these approaches, strategies, and ideas to use as you write and revise your second N&V article.

Guidelines.
Write an article of 1000-1200 words that analyzes your focus paper and is directed toward a broad, scientifically literate audience. The following list provides guidelines for the content of your article. Be sure to address these points. The list is not meant to indicate a fixed structure; please note that the published News and Views articles tend to depart from this structure in various ways. The only requirements for article structure are that the arrangement and reasoning flow logically in a manner that communicates the ideas effectively.

1. . Clearly state the study question or hypothesis and explain why this is of interest in ecology. Elaborate with some broader discussion of why this study, in particular, is ecologically exciting. Develop the context using ideas from other publications.
Call out the novelty or importance of this study by specifying how it addresses previous deficiencies or hurdles to our understanding of the general question. Is it especially timely for some reason, has it broken new ground with new approaches or methods, has it somehow managed to resolve some long-standing debated or controversial question? Use this to link to the relevant methods.
Try to generate interest in your topic by setting the stage in a way that readers can relate to. You may wish to be creative or catchy, as long as you present the science appropriately. Everyone enjoys a mystery or an intriguing problem to be solved; think about whether you can orient your explanation in this way.
Support your reasoning with citations from related literature. Use in-text (name, year) citation format.
2. Describe the methods or approach used, briefly and only as needed. Include only what readers need to know to understand how the research questions were tested and results were interpreted and orient your discussion accordingly. For instance, is there some new method, or is there a way in which the methods were applied, that is key to understanding the importance of the study? Are there details about a particular method that the reader needs to know to understand the results or conclusions, or to understand something that made the study especially exciting? After putting together your first tentative draft, revise the methods section after asking yourself (1) is it obvious, in very general terms, how the questions were tested, and (2) is each piece of information that you have included is necessary for understanding some other part of your article?
3. Discuss major results, interpretations, and conclusions of the paper. Include a relevant figure, if it is useful. Be sure to refer to the figure (and reference the source in the caption) if it is included!
**Remember that an important goal of your article is to explain the broader contributions to the ecological area of interest.** Your article should come full circle to address and resolve ideas brought up in your introductory paragraphs. Support your reasoning with citations from related literature. After putting together your first tentative draft, compare this section to your introductory material. Do your conclusions address the introductory ideas? Revise to make sure you tell a complete story.
4. Identify remaining uncertainties and further questions that are raised by this research, and comment on productive next steps that could be taken. In other words, **where does this study take us, and where does it point us in terms of future research needs?** Be sure that these ideas are carefully integrated into the flow of ideas in the article. You do not want to simply provide a list at the end that says: oh and by the way, this that and the other were unclear, and this other thing and that other thing should be done in the future. Instead, make it an effective part of the story.
5. Provide a Literature cited section. Follow this format:
Teschke I, Cartmill EA, Stankewitz S, Tebbich S. 2011. Sometimes tool use is not the key: no evidence for cognitive adaptive specializations in tool using woodpecker finches. Animal Behavior. 82:945–956.
where Animal Behavior is the journal name, 82 is the journal volume, and 945-956 are the page numbers.

Using in-text citations.
In this assignment, you will be supporting your reasoning with citations from other published studies. We use citations to acknowledge the source of any ideas, statistics, or specific results. For example, if I were writing an article about a study that focuses on effects of climate variability on primary productivity, I might want to use some of the ideas from a paper by Knapp and Smith paper that provided a comprehensive overview of climate responses across multiple ecosystems. I might write “The response by NPP to temporal climate variation can depend on the type of ecosystem (Knapp and Smith 2001)”. If there are more than two authors, then the convention is to write (Knapp et al. 2001).

Do not use quotes.
In-text citations allow us to refer to ideas and results from other studies, but they do not allow us to use the text written by the authors of the cited studies. That would be plagiarism. An exact statement can be reproduced if it is placed in quotation marks (and the reference is cited). However, this is rarely done in science writing and should be avoided in our assignments. You are to write your own thoughts and ideas, in your own words, that you have developed by reading the work of others.

File upload.
Upload your assignment to Canvas. Use Word or Word-compatible software. No pdf please.

100 % 90 % 80 % 70 %
< 60 % 1. Introduction General context, significance Clearly identifies main concept or question that is addressed. Provides informative context and conveys general scientific interest or significance of the concept/question. Statements are concise and substantive; no vague or unsubstantiated claims. Main concept or question is generally clear, context is presented but not completely developed. Interest in the question is stated but reasons may not be obvious. Support for statements is adequate but could be improved. Concept/question can be inferred, context should be elaborated, significance may not be well stated. Support for some statements is minimal. Concept/question is only vaguely explained. Context is not clear, significance is not well stated. Support for statements may be absent. Concept/question is not clear, significance or reason for interest in the question is not explained. Statements are vague and not supported. 2. Introduction More specific angle: specific challenges, previous unresolved questions Clearly identifies previously unresolved questions related to main concept or question, explains new or innovative approaches to address them. Statements are supported by specific information; no vague or unsubstantiated claims. Mostly explains unresolved questions related to main concept or question. New or innovative contributions that address those questions can be inferred but may not be completely developed. Support for statements is adequate but could be improved. Mentions unresolved questions related to main concept or question. New or innovative aspects are not fully presented or developed. Support for statements is minimal. Unresolved questions are not clear. New or innovative aspects addressing previously unresolved questions are incomplete. Support for statements may be absent. Unresolved questions and new or innovative aspects needed to address those questions are not provided. Statements are vague and not supported. 3. Methods Concise explanation of approaches; only when needed Presents research methods clearly and effectively and only if needed; content and level of detail are appropriate for interpreting results. Presents research approaches moderately clearly; relationship between methods and main results is mostly appropriate. Content and level of detail are mostly appropriate for interpreting results. Presents research approaches somewhat clearly; relationship between methods and main results can be partly inferred. Content, detail are not completely appropriate. Does not present research approaches very clearly; relationship between methods and main results is not clear. Content and level of detail are not well-matched to goals. Unclear presentation of methods; no relationship between the methods presented and what is needed to interpret findings. 4. Results Major findings Presents and explains results clearly and concisely; appropriate content and level of detail for effectively conveying research contributions. Presents and explains results mostly but not completely clearly. Close to appropriate content, level of detail for conveying research contributions. Results are partly presented and explained; Content and level of detail do not effectively convey contributions. Not very clearly presented. Content and detail are minimal Unclear presentation. Content absent or incorrect. 5. Discussion General synthesis and contribution Concisely synthesizes findings. Clearly explains contribution to broader scientific question. Statements are supported by specific information; no vague or unsubstantiated claims. Synthesis is generally clear and contribution to broader question is indicated but could be further developed. Support for statements is adequate but could be improved. Provides some synthesis. Contribution to broader question can be inferred but is not clearly indicated. Support for statements is minimal. Only minor or vague synthesis. Contribution to broader question is incomplete. Support for statements may be absent. Lacks synthesis. Contribution to broader question is not clear. Statements are vague and not supported. 6. Discussion Critical evaluation, interpretation Critically interprets results with careful reasoning and evaluates findings with respect to original research question. Interprets and evaluates results; ideas are moderately well developed but link to original research question may not be obvious. Partially interprets and evaluates results; ideas are partly developed; weak connection to original research question. Primarily reiterates results with only superficial analysis or evaluation; ideas only vaguely developed. Lacks any analysis or evaluation. Ideas not developed. 7. Discussion Limitations and future needs Identifies important uncertainties or unresolved questions arising from study. Clearly specifies related future research needs. Statements are supported by specific information; no vague or unsubstantiated claims. Important uncertainties or unresolved questions can be inferred but are not completely obvious. Future research needs could be further developed. Support for statements is adequate but could be improved. Uncertainties, unresolved questions, and future research needs are vaguely stated. Support for some statements is minimal. Uncertainties, unresolved questions, and future research needs are incomplete. Support for statements may be absent. Uncertainties, unresolved questions, and future research needs are not provided. Statements are vague and not supported. 8. Structure Organization of overall paper Organization logically and effectively analyzes the main concept or question. Topic sentences are clear and information is integrated with logical flow of reasoning and transitions to support main points. Organization logically analyzes the main question or concept, but some exceptions minimize the clarity. One or two topic statements or transitions could be improved. Information and reasoning generally flow logically with some exceptions. Organization is partially effective for analyzing main question. Some less-than-clear topic statements and/or inadequate transitions; flow of reasoning and transitions could be improved. Organization is not entirely clear, precluding clear analysis of the main question. Some paragraphs Missing topic statements. Flow of reasoning is not clear. Lack of clear organization confuses analysis of the concept/question. Lack of logical flow of reasoning. 9. Reasoning Organization and effective reasoning within paragraphs Each paragraph effectively communicates its main point; excellent supporting content; convincing reasoning, logical flow of ideas is logical. Communication of ideas could be more effective in one or two paragraphs. Supporting content could be further developed; reasoning and flow of ideas are good but could be better. Multiple paragraphs lacking effective communication of ideas. Supporting content incomplete; reasoning and flow of ideas are partly effective. Most paragraphs lacking effective communication of ideas. Superficial support of topics; mostly ineffective reasoning or flow of ideas. Communication of ideas absent from paragraphs owing to lack of support, reasoning, or flow. 10. Language Effective communication at the sentence level Sentence structure, grammar, word choice all clearly and directly communicate ideas. Occasional issues with sentence structure, word choice, grammar, so that ideas are mostly but not always clearly communicated. Somewhat common issues with sentence structure, word choice, grammar, so that the paper is not easy to read and understand. Very common issues with sentence structure, grammar, word choice. Significant problems with sentence structure, grammar, word choice.