Briefly stated, this assignment asks you to:

1. Select an article in a newspaper, magazine, or popular science journal that interests you. Topics related to astronomy are obviously preferred.

2. Use the library tools we will show you to check the facts that are stated in the article. Find at least three other sources of information on this topic, and list them in a bibliography in your paper.

3. Critique the original article that you selected, and decide, based upon your background research, whether it is a good representation of the scientific “data” or not.

4. When you hand this assignment in, you will need to include a copy of the original article, as well as your critique.

Hints on finding a paper:

Rooting around in the library is a good way to find articles that interest you. We have some newspapers on-line and in paper form. You might choose a science article from your hometown newspaper, which might be available on-line! You might also examine science articles that can be found in magazines available at a typical supermarket. Finally, magazines such as Time and Newsweek might be good sources of articles. Sarah Oelker, our MHC Science Librarian, will be in class on April 11th to give you an overview of some possible resources for this assignment, and she'll be available to give you help along the way.

I have no length limit on the article that you choose. I want the subject matter to be something of interest to you, preferably related to the course, and preferably recent, any length, but there has to be some good substance to the article. My expectation is that you select a recent article, but you are free to select an old or obscure or unorthodox article if it intrigues you. If you are having trouble finding suitable articles, come and see me or Sandy Ward to get suggestions. If you are in doubt about the appropriateness of the article, then come and check it out with me.

How to find background info:
Your research should be done by reading other journal articles, review papers, or any other appropriate means. 'Other means' might include looking at science press articles (say, in Sky & Telescope or Scientific American or National Geographic) or talking with someone knowledgeable. A strong warning to the wise is that internet pages are notoriously unreliable: please use sources that are NOT web sites. A good first tactic is to start from the clues that are found in your original article, such as people’s names or a journal that published the research. A second good tactic would be to find a recent review article on the topic of interest. The grade will be given based on the quality of your insight. However, I would expect that you might typically have to read 3-6 sources to get a good picture.

Many of the technical details will be beyond your knowledge, but this is OK: often, technical details are beyond any non-specialist's knowledge. Don't worry about adopting someone else's ideas, as this is normal and not bad. All ideas must be fully referenced with correct attribution (citation).

More specifics:

For your written review, I am expecting a length equivalent to 1-2 single-spaced typewritten pages (no more than two pages). The length of your report will not affect the grade (unless it's more than 2 pages, in which case I'll subtract points); I am looking for your critical insights that can be expressed either succinctly or voluminously. Don't forget to also hand in a copy of the artical eyou are critiquing.

The contents of your review will depend heavily on the nature of your chosen article. Here are some examples of specific questions that you might want to discuss (as appropriate) -- this is NOT an inclusive list, just some ideas to get you thinking!

(1) What is the article title and citation that you are reviewing? (Please attach a photocopy of the article to your review.) Remember to give the citations of all your sources.

(2) In one paragraph, tell me what is the specific new result being discussed in the article and the basis for that claim?

(3) If they are reporting a new result, determine if it really is a new result? That is, was the new result totally unexpected, was it already anticipated, was it a better measure of a known result, or is it just one of a series of similar claims?

(4) If appropriate, discuss the dominant source of uncertainty in the reported result and did the authors tell the readers about it? How does this uncertainty compare with other comparable work in the field?

(5) Where does the article fit in to the history of past research on the topic?

(6) Are there errors in the paper? What went wrong and is the error enough to change the conclusion? This question covers from factual errors up to large conceptual errors. Few papers are perfect, but maybe the only 'errors' are not substantial. This is one of the most important questions for a referee. Top scientists all have a very good nose for detecting problems, and this is vital when preparing your own work.

(7) What is the higher program or reason for why the authors did their research?

(8) Is there a controversy associated with the reported result, and if so why?

(9) Estimate the probability that the basic new result claimed in your article is likely to be right?

(10) Who will likely use the results from this paper?

(11) How important is the results presented in the article?

(12) What are the next steps to be taken to check or build upon the results?

The grading of your article review will be based solely on the depth of insights presented on the paper. Unfortunately, each paper will have different points that are important for you to know what is really going on. For example, a paper might have no significant errors or problems and so little could be said on this issue. But a paper that does have a significant problem should have this issue deeply discussed. Missing a substantial error is poor form but pointing to insubstantial problems will not impress. Another example is that your article might be part of a running controversy, in which case you should tell me all about the players and the sides and the stakes. Even being able to recognize a paper as being a blah more-of-the-same for a field is useful, and in such a case maybe you could give commentary on whether the same authors are usually this poor. Every paper has its deep story, and I will be judging you by how well you tell me that story.

Checklist for your paper:

1. Do you start your paper with a paragraph that introduces the subject and the popular aticle you chose to examine?
2 . Have you included a reference list with at least three references from the scholarly literature, i.e., not from popular science journals?
3. Is every source in your reference list also cited in your paper?
4. Is every fact in your paper is followed by a citation to the place where you found it?
5. Is your entire paper less than two pages long, including references? Single spacing is perfectly acceptable.
6. Have you attached a copy of the popular article you chose?
7. Label the top of your paper with the following: your NAME, your Blanchard Box number (or mailing adderss ifyou live off campus) and your CID number (as usual). This will allow us to send back your papers to you on Tuesday morning.

Identifying Resources for this assignment (Xavier University)
Carleton College, same topic

Here are some examples of past year's papers to have a look at. Keep in mind that the requirements for the assignments may have changed a bit over time:

Elizabeth Baumann
Erin Coates
Eleanor Dow
Lisa Laskiewicz
Amanda Newton
Suzie Stevenson
Emily White
Michaela Millunzi
Carolyn Bauer
Libby Szarkoski
Maria Marcantonio
Anise Gold-Watts