Writing Response Papers

When you are asked to write a response paper, you should write a succinct (1-2 page) paper offering some critical analysis of the primary literature we are reading for the week. The model for these papers is that you are the reviewer of the paper, determining whether it requires additional experimentation or should be published as is. Students should consider their criticisms of the paper in light of its major conclusions or proposed models. A student concluding the paper should be published should discuss how the data support the specific model proposed by the authors. Those rejecting the paper should describe how the data fail to support that model.

Subjects of the analysis might include:

• missing or inappropriate controls in key experiments
• invalid assumptions by the authors
• missing or weak experiments
• alternative interpretations of data
• questions about the experimental approach that you find confusing, etc.

Approaching the Response Paper

Many of these ideas are taken from

Graff, G. & Birkenstein, C. (2009). They Say, I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing. W. W. Norton.

I. The first paragraph should include a summary of the major findings of the paper. - They say

II. The next paragraphs should include your criticism(s) of the paper - I Say.

• Prioritize criticism so that the most important points come first, even if they come later in the original paper. This places emphasis on the key experiments.
• Describe your criticism clearly.
• Explain why it is important.
• Suggests changes or new experiments that could address the criticism.
• Repeat for each major criticism.
• Include a shorter section for minor problems with the paper, such as flaws in presentation, clarity of figures, lack of detail, etc.

III. A final paragraph brings the two sections together (They say, I say, tying it all together), discusses relevance and summarizes your final position.

Some ideas to consider in paper criticism

• Did they use qualitative data to address quantitative issues? Is the data sufficiently quantitative?
• What are the assumptions and limitations of the chosen approach?
• Did they confuse cause and effect?
• Did the authors establish causation (or confuse correlation with causation)?
• Did they use the correct controls in critical experiments?
• Did the authors demonstrate a gene is both necessary and sufficient?
• Are the proposed interactions between genes direct? Did they demonstrate this adequately?
• Did the authors establish a mechanism for the phenomena they observe?
• Is the interaction they describe biologically relevant?
• Are the conclusions justified by the data?

Note that these are pretty sophisticated. One can start by identifying key experiments and describing how they are confusing or seem to be missing key elements.

Warning! Scientific papers are filled with details and jargon, some of which is critical for understanding the paper. Please use other resources (including other students, TA's, professors, books, the Web) to get a better handle on the material. Don't forget to cite such sources in your response paper! Also, if you get stuck on one figure, skip it and try to work through the rest of the paper. You may find it makes more sense later.