 Discuss with your neighbor, and be ready to share:  To the best of your ability, define the term, “peer- reviewed scientific article”.  We’ll discuss this in class…

 Title a page in your notebook:  “Peer-reviewed articles – 9/9”  DISCUSS questions quickly with your lab partner, be ready to share.  Answer them in your notebook as the class discusses them  Bulleted answers are best (lists, short statements, etc.).  You do not need to copy questions – just write answers.

1) What is the purpose of the first paragraph? Do you know what that paragraph is called?  “Abstract” – a summary of the article  Useful for readers who want to determine if reading the entire article is worthwhile 2) What was the main question or problem addressed by the research in PLoS article?  Why are SRKW populations declining?

3) What are the proposed reasons for this Orca decline?  Vessel impact hypothesis  Inadequate prey hypothesis  Toxin hypothesis (not addressed in this paper)  “…another economic, logistic, and politically complicated task.” 4) According to the paper (halfway down the left side of page 2), SRKW have a diet that is 80-90% Chinook salmon. What do the numbers in brackets [19,20] indicate as the authors explain the salmon information?  These are “references” or “citations”  Peer-reviewed papers are “consistent with established knowledge.” (Refer to previous research)

5) What do GC and T3 hormones indicate?  GC: Levels rise if hungry or psychologically stressed  T3: Levels decrease if hungry 6) How did the authors collect hormone data to answer their question? This was also covered in the the NY Times article. (Note: DNA was used to identify individual whales…)

7) What were the main results (which of the two studied hypotheses appears to be the cause of SRKW decline)?  They’re hungry– GC levels correlated with low food availability, but were not correlated with number of vessels (boats/ships).  Mentioned in 2 sentences in the popular press article 8) What are the “real world” implications of this study? See the last page of the discussion.  “…these results suggest that promoting salmon recovery is vital to the long-term persistence of SRKW.”  Authors first explain what results mean, then try to connect them to the “real world”.

9) What do you think “peer-reviewed article” means? (This was your warmup!)  Article authors submit draft to a scientific journal editor  Forwarded to experts in the field (“peers”)  Peers must be impartial (strict rules)  Peers evaluate validity of data (accuracy, methodology, interpretation)  Peers either:  Recommend acceptance of paper  Recommend revision – and then acceptance  Recommend rejection Note: you will read peer-reviewed articles in high school and college; more exposure now makes it easier later!

10)What are some differences between peer-reviewed research articles (PLoS) and those that are not peer- reviewed (like the NY Times article)?  Not reviewed by other scientists  May have a point of view/opinion  May be incomplete  Focus may be to inform AND/OR entertain (difficult to tell)

When you hear politicians/public figures talk about science, pay attention – are they talking about their beliefs, using information from a “popular press” source, or are they discussing results of peer-reviewed research?  Example: climate change  Most politicians who suggest it isn’t occurring are not using peer-review scientific literature to support their statements.  Review definition of “peer-reviewed” article. Close notebook and be ready to share.

 Working with your partner, evaluate the following statement and determine if you would:  1) Accept the statement “as is” for publishing  2) Make minor changes to the statement, but eventually publish it  3) Reject the statement because you think it is a poor explanation of the data, unclear, or otherwise not ready for publication  “According to our data, approximately six years after Paul and Leslie got married they wrote a check to a children’s ballet studio. Twelve years later they wrote a check to a high school, and four years after that they wrote a check to a university. This clearly proves that Paul and Leslie had one daughter.”

 Working with your partner, evaluate the following statement and determine if you would:  1) Accept the statement “as is” for publishing  2) Make minor changes to the statement, but eventually publish it  3) Reject the statement because you think it is a poor explanation of the data, unclear, or otherwise not ready for publication  “In the Checks Lab, collected data show Paul and Leslie initially living separately under different names and later living together with a shared name. We can conclude that they probably got married.”

 “The data collected in this study show that Paul and Leslie wrote checks to political organizations with opposing views about women’s health care. This suggests that Paul and Leslie wanted to have another child and when they did not, they got divorced.”