Scientific Journal Article Review (Article Sample)
This assignment is to critically review a scientific journal article. When critically reviewing the article highlight, where possible, the key components of risk assessment present in the paper: i.e. Hazard Identification, Exposure, Dose Response, Risk Quantification and Risk Management. Note that all of these aspects may not be present in the paper. We are required to write a draft critical review before the week commencing 13th October 2014, when the work will be subject to review by peers and the peer review process should be use to produce an improved final critical review for the final submission. For the portfolio assessment you must submit a finalised critical review, in combination with a paper copy of the Original Journal Article that was annotated. The paper review will be assessed as follows: 1. Correct risk management component identification (20%) 2. Response to peer review assessment, i.e. submission of draft and final versions, plus peer assessment statements (20%) 3. Critical assessment of the reviewed scientific journal paper (60%). Your critical assessment should include statements regarding quality and appropriateness of method, results and conclusions. A maximum of 10% of this component will be awarded for presentation and use of English language in the paper review. The paper that is needed to be review is: Ander, E,A., Johnson, C.C., Cave, M.R., Palumbo-Roe, B., Nathanail, C.P. and Lark, R.M.(2013) Methodology for the determination of normal background concentrations of contaminants in English soil. Science of The Total Environment, 454-455: 604-618. This paper can be downloaded from the website: http://www.sciencedirect.com or can directly use the search engine to find the paper. Paper Review (3 pages approximately; 1250 words maximum). Please give me first draft that can be improved for the final write up because they will be looking at how it was improved after the peer assessment.
source..Scientific Journal Article Review
Name:
Subject:
Date of Submission:
Introduction
Ander et al., (2013) made a publication called “Methodology for the Determination of Normal Background Concentrations of Contaminants in English Soil.” As the tittle suggests the authors wanted to establish a methodology to help researchers determine the normal background concentrations of contaminants in English soil. It is notable that the term normal is used based on the Statutory Guidelines provided by the United Kingdom Secretary of State. Further, the research focused on England, Wales, and Scotland. This is highlighted by the mentioning of the absence of Category 0 in the aforementioned countries. It is crucial to note that the Ander et al., (2013) completed their study using an introduction, methodology, results and conclusion. As a result, the authors made eight conclusions from their study. This paper is an objective critique to the Publication by Ander et al., because it examines their introduction, methodology, results, and conclusion.
The Introduction
According to Day (2011), the introduction of a geological publication should present the basis for the entire publication. This could be done by presenting the scope and nature of the research problem in addition to its significance. The introduction should also include a survey of pertinent literature; additionally, it should state the method of investigation, the main results, and conclusions of the study. Day (2011) further argues that the introduction could also identify the geological setting of the research problem. Analogously, Scolofsky (2008) reveals that researchers should also include the background of the research problem because it attracts the attention of the readers to the research problem. Additionally, the background enables researchers to focus on the research problem because it provides the basis for stating the problem. It is also important for researchers to state the hypothesis, especially if the research problem uses an experimental design.
The publication by Ander et al., (2013) adhered to most of the qualities of an introduction. As an evidence of this, the publication identified the geological setting of the research problem as England, Wales, and Scotland. The study also indicated an objective of determining a methodology in addition to surveying pertinent literature in the introduction. Further, the authors used recent publications for their literature review, which improves on the credibility of the study. It is critical that the background of information is available because Ander et al., (2013) provided a background of information by stating the need to regulate soil contamination. Nonetheless, the introduction did not mention the significance, method of investigation, main results, and conclusions of the study.
Methodology
As aforementioned, Ander et al., (2013) used a methodology to conduct their study. It should be noted that the authors did not have a clear heading indicating the beginning of their methodology. Nonetheless, scholars can deduce that the authors used a methodology from the content of their publication. This is owes to the truth that the authors mention the availability of data sets used by the study. Some of the data sets mentioned include the Primary soil chemical data for England and the Supplementary soil chemical data for England. It follows that the publishers used secondary sources of information to collect data. As an evidence of this, Ander et al., (2013) cited Fordyce et al., (2005) because the latter publication contained data in the appendix. Another source of data used by the authors was a relational MS Access database.
According to Kotze (2007), authors should describe the methodology clearly and precisely, by explaining how the experiment was conducted. Further, a methodology should provide a rationale for the experimental procedures used in the study. Simply put, it must be written in a manner that allows other researchers to follow all the procedures used to conduct the study. This is because it enables other researchers to reproduce the results of the study in addition to allowing readers to judge whether the research is valid. Ander et al., (2013) described their methodology clearly, because the study can be reproduced without difficulty. Nonetheless, the authors used secondary sources of data. This reduces credibility of the study because secondary sources of data are subject to second party bias (Derntl, 2014).
Results
The results section is the most significant section of a research paper, because it provides study outcomes. According to the Instructions to Authors (2014), a researcher may examine different aspects of the research topic, but should report the relevant and most useful results. In doing so, the researcher should organize the results chronologically, or based on order of importance. Further, the clarity of the result section could be improved using tables, charts, and texts. Therefore, scholars should use appropriate tools when presenting results from studies. Another important aspect of the result section is to ensure consistency in the reported values i.e. ensuring that values such as the mean and median are not interchanged. It is critical that Pickering (2012) argues that researchers should be keen to label tables and figures accordingly. Thus, researchers should be able to present their results by adhering to the discussed elements.
Ander et al., (2013) presented their results by adhering to all the required elements. This owes to the fact that the researchers presented relevant findings owing to the fact that they did not present descriptive statistics i.e. results of descriptive statistics would be irrelevant (Rossbacher and Rhodes, 2006). Additionally, the authors used a chronological order to present their findings because they began discussing their results with data exploration and definition of domains. The authors also presented their findings on the methodology used to determine the normal background concentrations. Consequently, the authors presented their results using diagrams and tables, which were labeled accordingly. This is highlighted by the fact Ander et al., (2013) cite table 2 and figure four when discussing the results of their study. It is also notable that the results section was clear and cohesive implying readers can easily understand the outcome of the study. Nonetheless, the publishers did not use numerical values because of the nature of their research problem.
Conclusion
The conclusion pre...
