This scheme reminds me of the Underpants Gnomes of South Park:
Phase1: Journal clubPhase2: ?
Phase3: Smart & analytical trainees
Now, maybe this is a gradual process - you start being able to identify the weaknesses in terrible papers first, and then find weaknesses in better papers, increasingly up the scale until you can see what experimental holes people are hiding in very well crafted papers. I fail to see how this process is learned at journal club - journal clubs aren't a class; they're a rabble. There's no one leading the dissection - participants point out parts of the paper they liked or didn't like, or ask questions of each other on the nuts-and-bolts of the experiments, but there isn't a concerted effort to make sure people know or understand what the holes are and why they're important.
Perhaps the journal clubs I've been part of have been faulty in some way.
If you just attend enough journal club sessions, does this ability magically reveal itself to you?
I've always hated journal clubs. Mostly because the ones I've been involved in include such a wide range of researchers that only a handful of people understand what a certain paper is about. So, most of the time is spent explaining the science behind the paper.
ReplyDeletePlus, I find it hard to care about a paper that I can't even read without wanting to hang myself (read: boring!!) - but I guess that was one of the signs that academia wasn't for me! LOL!
There are journal clubs, and there are journal clubs. Nobody can tell you which are which. The good ones are worth it. They are often made good by a thoughtful discussion leader who themselves says very little. I think good discussions (from a training, not necessarily an entertainment POV) come when you multiple people are excited about the science of the paper, and they all start going on about what questions to answer next- and how to answer them. Discussing the pros and cons of a paper- like a book report- without *designing* experiments A) is less interesting and B) is not nearly as good training.
ReplyDeleteI suppose I can see how a bunch of scientists who are excited about a paper could produce an interesting discussion. That doesn't seem to work when you have journal club once a week - how often can you find a paper you're that excited by? And how does it help trainees?
ReplyDeleteI LOVE our journal club. Its been hugely helpful to me for learning how to dissect a paper. Our journal club is limited to individuals in our lab, who all work on the same tissue type and structure but different aspects of it. We all get excited / frustrated by the paper. This is how we run our club.
ReplyDeleteNo one person present the whole paper or picks all the papers. Every week, a different member picks the paper and send its out. I will then assign each member a figure(s) to present.
At the journal club, the individual who picked the paper introduces the paper, explaining why they picked it and its contribution / importance in understanding our field of study.
We then present go around and present each figure. This is how I learned how to read/dissect papers, from watching and listening to how the more seniors lab members presented their figures. They would explain the purpose of the figure - what are the authors trying to show. They would then go through each panel and talk about what the authors feel is important. Then they critique the findings. Sometimes they say I don't see it, its weak b/c these controls are missing. Or the experimental design is faulty because. Others will either agree or disagree, each figure being discussed and dissected.
I love good journal clubs, but I think it takes a dedicated group of people with shared interests who are willing to put in the effort to understand the paper ahead of time, and at least one person experienced in the field to give perspective. Without both of those things it's not worth it for me.
ReplyDeleteAs others have said, there is a range of journal club experience. The ones that are dedicated to the pursuit of tearing a paper asunder are rarely all that good because it is easy to (convincingly) discredit a paper even if you don't fully understand it.
ReplyDeleteAn approach more like that which SM described ensures that people really get into the paper and why the authors present it the way they do. One of the major benefits is having some experience in sniffing out the most effective way to present your data to an audience, and the simple rip and tear journal clubs don't instill this.
Journal clubs are only good, if the people discussing the articles are good too. Many a "rehash this paper figure by figure and learn nothing new since nobody has anything to really add" journal clubs which were just hours of my life I wasn't getting back.
ReplyDeleteBut when you have that JC where the paper presenter/readers knows his/her stuff, gives you background, explains significance and how it relates to what you are doing.. then I feel like I have walked away with something.
Too bad in my experience, the first example outnumbers the second 10 to 1.
All the JCs I've been involved in have been treated as an obligatory meeting that no one wants to go to - I'm sure that attitude isn't helping anything.
ReplyDeleteI think there might also need to be some minimum number of people participating actively before the discussion is fruitful - if there's only a small group, I don't see that being anything more than a book report.
We have only 5 people in our JC, but we actively participate and see it as an important part of the learning process. Now that we have new students, hir will be expected to attend and we will focus on her thesis project as her comps near.
ReplyDeleteI guess I"m saying participants do make or break the club.