Papers and Suggestions for Reviews
Oct. 2: Spatz, H-C, L. Kohler, and T. Speck. 1998. Biomechanics and functional anatomy of hollow-stemmed sphenopsids. I. Equisetum giganteum (Equisetaceae). American Journal of Botany 85:305-314.
Oct. 23: Wolf, P.G. 1997. Evaluation of atpB nucleotide sequences for phlyogenetic studies of ferns and other pteridophytes. American Journal of Botany 84:1429-1440.
Nov. 20: Stefanovic, S., M. Jager, J. Deutsch, J. Broutin, and M. Masselot. 1998. Phylogenetic relationships of conifers inferred from partial 28S rRNA gene sequences. American Journal of Botany 85:688-697.
Dec. 11: Friedman, W.E. and J.S. Carmichael. 1996. Double fertilization in Gnetales: implications for understanding reproductive diversification among seed plants. International Journal of Plant Science 157(6 Suppl.): S77-S94.
Review of papers:
Abstract: Should inform the reader of the overall purpose of the paper and pertinent points.
Introduction: Objective, hypotheses, brief background in research paper, author's opinion in a review paper.
Methods: Detailed approach and its relevance to the hypotheses being tested.
Results: Data should support the hypotheses, or reject them, and should be adequately derived from the methods used. Data should be presented clearly and without gaps.
Discussion: Interpretation of results should be appropriate to data and methods. Significance of findings, direction for future work, conclusions drawn.
Critique each of these sections in a sentence or two, making the total review of the paper about a paragraph long and certainly no more than one page.
Return to Table of Contents