Annotated Bibliography

 
Annotated Bibliography
Annotated Bibliography (40 pts.)

I. Are the literature sources appropriate for the thesis/topic chosen? (20 pts.)
A. Are the sources authoritative (from a peer-reviewed journal or edited periodical)?
B. Balance between primary (novel) and secondary (review) literatures?

II. Annotation (20 pts.)
A. Informative, accurate summary of papers read?
B. Evidence of comprehension of research cited?

Outline (60 pts.)

I. Thesis (5 pts.)
A. Clearly articulated with appropriate detail and focus?

II. Introduction/Background (15 pts.)
A. Does author introduce reader to the thesis/problem in an appropriate context?
1) Is the nature of the disease studied explained sufficiently?
a. Does the author demonstrate mastery of the material introduced?
B. Are appropriate literature sources cited?
1) Will these sources build adequate context for the thesis?
C. Background
1) Introduction to the genetics, cell biology, and molecular biology necessary for the reader to understand gene therapy research?
2) Historical advances that led to current gene therapy research described/explained?

III. Main argument(20 pts.)
A. Does the author adequately support thesis with material from the primary and secondary literatures?
B. Does the author demonstrate mastery of the literature used?
C. Does the author stick to the published data and refrain from use of personal opinion?
D. Are the arguments made an accurate reflection of the literature used?

IV. Conclusions (10 pts.)
A. Does the author summarize and integrate the literature used to draw thoughtful conclusions?
1) Are conclusions free of opinion?
2) Are the conclusions accurate and unbiased?
B. Does the author provide future directions anticipated by literature?

READ ALSO :   Anatomy of neurons,synaptic transmissions& functions of neurotransmitters

V. Writing (10 pts.)
A. Concise, clear writing free of unexplained jargon?
1) Appropriate for a lay educated audience?
B. Free of proofreading errors (see below)?

Gene Therapy/Genomic Medicine Paper Annotation Guide
As I evaluate your gene therapy papers, I will use the following abbreviations to indicate places where more extensive proofreading and/or revision is necessary. Please use these comments to guide your revision process, but they should not be the only reason you decide to make revisions to your paper. You should also re-read your paper and make revisions based upon your own comments.
In addition to the comments on writing mechanics, I will make comments on the content, style, and flow of your paper. These comments will not instruct you on how to fix the problem. Instead, they should encourage you to take a thoughtful second look at key sections of the paper in which I have detected problems.

P – punctuation problem
G – grammatical error
Sp – spelling error; Sp? – potential spelling error
Awk – Statement, sentence, or phrase is difficult to understand as written. Can you clarify?
Coll – This statement is too colloquial (conversational) for a formal scientific paper.
Ref – Should this material be referenced (i.e., is this material derived from a primary or secondary source)?
Con? – Is the content of this statement, phrase, or sentence correct? Questionable error in content.
Con! – unquestionable error in content; Author: please rethink/research the validity of this content.
¶ – paragraph break
RO – run-on sentence; sentence too long
wc – word choice
Pr – proofreading error
WO – write this out, don’t abbreviate
tense– incorrect usage of tense
Why? – support your statement with reason, evidence, or explanation
nnh – not necessary here
AK – assumed or common knowledge in the field; this text can be deleted
1. Abegglen et. al. “Potential Mechanisms for Cancer Resistance in Elephants and Comparative Cellular Response to DNA Damage in Humans.” Journal of American Medicine 314.17 (2015): 1850-860. Web.
2. “Illuminating Cancer Resistance in Elephants.” Cancer Discovery (2015): n. pag. Web.

READ ALSO :   The growth in internet use has affected cultures around the world, leading to a westernised,

3. Greaves, Mel. “Evolutionary Adaptations to Risk of Cancer.” Journal of American Medicine 314.17 (2015): 1806-0807. Web.
4. Zimmer, Carl. “Elephants: Large, Long-Living and Less Prone to Cancer.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 12 Oct. 2015. Web. 06 Nov. 2015.