Scientific
papers are typically constructed as Abstract, Introduction, Results and
Discussion. You should essentially
follow this construction in your presentation and follow the general guidelines
below.
1. Abstract/ Introduction. Start by stating very
briefly what the paper is about.
Give the title and names of major authors (first authors and
corresponding authors). Give a
roadmap of the questions they want to answer and how they go about doing that.
a.
Big Picture
Significance. What general research area does this paper
explore? Why should anyone find
this interesting? If possible,
include as many reasons as you can, e.g. practical reasons (for improving
health or productivity?) and intellectual reasons (what is puzzling or
mysterious about the area being investigated?). Be mindful that your audience may not appreciate why the
topic is interesting.
b.
Organism/System. Give some background on the experimental organism or system chosen for
this study. Why do people
typically use this organism/approach?
Are their alternative systems that could be used? Do these have drawbacks? In a couple of
slides, summarize the advantages and disadvantages of the chosen
organism/system.
c.
Specific
problem. Concisely state the questions that the authors are
addressing and the general strategies that they are using to address them. Be sure to give a clear sense of the –point
of departure” for the experiments
described in the paper. Indicate
clearly what previous studies had established, what questions those previous
experiments raised or left unaddressed, and which of those questions the paper
to be presented explores.
d.
Other
background. Summarize any additional background information
necessary for your audience to understand the research presented in the
paper. Read the important
references in the introduction and methods yourself to make sure you understand
the problem. Focus on both the
biological question and the specific methods that will be used. In the case of techniques, sometimes it
will be easier to introduce these as you go through the results.
2.
Results. Describe each experiment in the paper. The order of
results in the text does not always follow the order presented in the
figures. Use you best judgment on
the presentation order to best maintain coherence and clarity in the
presentation. For each experiment:
a.
State the
hypothesis. Clearly describe what the authors want
to demonstrate with each experiment and how their experiments address this.
b.
Describe the
method. Describe the method employed in sufficient detail so that
the audience can understand and interpret the results. To do this properly, you will need to
read the –materials and methods” section of the paper, and you may also need to
consult references that describe the intricacies of a technique, such as the
limitations. It is essential to
know what you can interpret from a particular experimental result when
evaluating the authoręs conclusions.
c.
Show the
figures. Crop and blow up relevant panels from the figures for each
separate experiment. Make things
large and legible so that everyone can evaluate the data on the screen. Sometimes this means that you only show
one panel from a figure at a time.
However, this depends on the density of information within each figure.
d.
Describe the
result. Go through the data slowly and thoroughly for the audience,
i.e. panel-by-panel and sample-by-sample within each panel. Describe why the authors designed the
experiments the way they did.
Remember controls are always important, especially in providing evidence
that new results are valid. Often
controls and some results are not presented in figures or tables but are
described in the text. Include
these in your presentation as they often include important information that
supports the authoręs arguments.
Also include any on line supplementary information in your results.
e.
State and
evaluate the conclusion. For each experiment, indicate the
authorsę interpretation and conclusions and describe whether you agree with
them! This information can
typically be found within both the Results and Discussion sections. Typically, the Discussion section gives
the broader picture perspective that relates to the overall thesis of the
paper. Information from both
sections should be included during your discussion of each figure. For every experiment that you present
you should address whether you agree with the authoręs interpretation and
conclusions and whether there are other approaches that would have improved
this study.
3.
Conclusions/ Discussion. Summarize
the overall conclusions of the paper. Make sure you read the references that
the authors base their conclusions on, so that you can present and evaluate
their argument clearly. State your
assessment of the experiments and conclusions in the paper. Did they do what they claimed they did
in their abstract/title? Is this
novel work? How convincing is
their argument after you have critically analyzed their data? How could have this paper been
strengthened? What are the next
experiments that you think that the authors should perform?
General tips.
PowerPoint
presentations are preferable for accurate reproduction of the figures from the
paper. Try to avoid excessive
animations, unless they are really required; this can often be
distracting. Projectors and a
Powerbook laptop are available in the department office.
If you prefer to use
transparencies for overheads, they are available in the cupboard above the copy
machines in the Departmental Office (W100). Use a font that is visible in the back of the room on your
overheads. Use the enlarge feature
on the copy machine when copying figures.
Go back to the original journal to copy and/or look at the figures if
you canęt make them out on your copy.
If there are figures that you canęt reproduce adequately, bring the
original journal to pass around.
Remember, initial
impressions are important for making a good start and will
give you confidence during the rest of your presentation. Therefore,
successful presenters typically write out and rehearse what they
are going to say during the first one to three minutes of
their presentations.
Copyright, Acknowledgements,
and Intended Use
Created by B. Beason (bbeason@rice.edu),
Rice University, 21 January 2008
Updated 5 May 2012