Reference no: EM132190616 , Length: word count:2500

Assignment

For this assignment you are required to conduct a critical review (2500 words max) of a topic selected from the list of titles provided below and submit a written report. The review should include a critique of a wide range of relevant scientific literature. Guidelines on how to write a critical review and referencing (use Harvard style) are provided so please read these documents.You must state the word count at the end of your review.

n.b. tables/figures and bibliography are not included within the word count

Titles for Critical Review (Assignment 1)

1. The glycaemic index - can it be used to enhance performance?

Rather than simply an essay on the function or anatomy of the subject matter, a critical review involves the coherent analysis of the issues surrounding a topic. In a critical review your aim is to evaluate the scientific merit of the research. Please note that a critical review should include many sources of literature and is not a critique of just one paper - the purpose of this critical review is for you to demonstrate that you have read widely in a particular area of literature and have understood what you have read.

It involves addressing inconsistent or incompatible evidence stemming from the research conducted in the area and attempting to explain the discrepancies or at least provide viable suggestions for the differences. Rather than just a descriptive essay reviewing the literature or facts on the topic, a critical review is an informed analysis of the issues surrounding a topic. This involves addressing findings from research conducted in the particular area which are both consistent and inconsistent with accepted knowledge. The review should also attempt to explain these inconsistencies and ultimately give the reader a critical state-of-the-art and up to date account of the particular research area.

Critical review writing

Critical review writing is an advanced skill in which you are expected to show evidence of your ability to analyse and evaluate rather than to just summarise. ‘Critical' does not imply criticising in an entirely negative way, but rather evaluating the work and supporting your evaluation by explanation. Every scientific paper which you will read has strengths and weaknesses in terms of design, structure, statistical analysis, extent to which conclusions are justified, account has been taken of other literature in the field, the findings have been reconciled with the literature (differences and similarities explained), clarity etc. Your job is to identify these strengths and weaknesses and report them throughout the review.

Structure of the review
Please refer to the critical review marking criteria (which is divided into sections) and should help you structure the assignment as well as showing you the distribution of marks for each section of the review.

Presentation of the critical review
References
At the end of the paper provide full references for all of the sources you used throughout the review (using Harvard referencing style, an Ulster University standard).

Scientific Style
Be sure to use appropriate grammar, style, and format for citing papers both in the body of the paper and in the references section.
Scientific writing
Scientific writing is expected to be clear, concise, and straightforward. Since this appears tobe problematic for some students - I have pulled together the following notes on scientific writing style from a variety of sources (there are many of these on the web which advise on ‘writing a scientific paper).
• use correct grammar and a style appropriate for formal writing, without colloquial phrases or personal pronouns (I you we she he they) - do not personalise your work
• use a clear, straightforward style -- say what you mean plainly without being grandiose, or unnecessarily dramatic. (e.g. "this research is of earthshaking importance")
• be concise (do not use a whole lot of extra words like these that do not do a great deal to add to the meaning of any particular sentence but rather detract from the general overall clarity of the paper in question!!). In general you should aim to say as much as possible, as clearly as possible in as few words as possible. This will take considerable effort and many drafts of each sentence.
• use simple, straightforward language -- if you have a choice between a simple, widely understood word and a complex, rarely used word, use the simple word
• The word ‘significant' has a very specific meaning in a scientific paper (statistically different) so avoid the more common usage (try ‘important')
• avoid being redundant (just say each thing once, don't repeat it over and over, don't keep saying the same thing in different places, don't repeat yourself like this).
• use active voice for a clear, snappy style that focuses the reader on the action (e.g. say "The authors made mistakes" rather than "Mistakes were made by the authors.")
• avoid the use of synonyms; it's clearer to reuse a word throughout your report than to try to come up with different ways to say the same thing (if you say something is "interesting" in one sentence, that something else is "important", that a third aspect is "fascinating" people will be confused, trying to figure out the distinction between these. If you mean the same thing for all of them, use the same word.)
• do not use "filler" sentences that have no additional meaning of their own. (e.g. don't say "The authors used several methods to study muscle anaerobic capacity." DO say "The authors studied anaerobic enzyme activity by performing muscle biopsies before and after).

Attachment:- Review guidelines.rar