Effect of the Charities Act 2006 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Effect of the Charities Act 2006 - Essay Example The Statute of Elizabeth, referred by many to as The Statute of Charitable Uses 1601 was the first legal conception of the charities trust. The Act defined charity in its preamble as, land, profits, and goods set aside for the benefit of the society from soldiers to school going children and the poor and elderly1. The Mortmain and Charitable Use Act 1888 changed a lot of the Statute of Elizabeth but maintained the introductory part of charities as per the Act. In a court ruling in the Goodman v Saltash Corporation [1882] 7 App Cas 633 case, the court was in favor that, goods were given to people in a town or village as charitable2. The Charities Act 1960 revoked all the previous statutes on charities leaving the interpretation of the term charities to fall under the purview of the law of England and Wales. Â  The designation of a charitable organization in the United Kingdom’s statute law, according to the Charities Act 2006, is an institution whose establishment is for charitable purposes alone. Some of the charitable purposes according to the Act include; the advancement of education, religion, and prevention of poverty. The charitable purposes also include the advancement of citizenship, health, animal welfare, arts, culture, heritage, and amateur sport, among others3. However, for the purposes of convenience in classifying the aims of charity, Lord Macnaghten in 1891 when ruling the Commissioners for Special Income Tax v Pemsel [1891] AC 531 case put the aims under four heads. These heads are; the reprieve of poverty, the advancement of education, the advancement of religion, and any purposes that are of benefit to society4. In order for an organization to be fully a charitable organization, one ought to be able to identify benefits rising from organizations to the advantag e of the society.

Causes of Tension Between Cuba and the United States Essay Example for Free

Causes of Tension Between Cuba and the United States Essay On January 9, 1959, following their successful overthrow of the oppressive Batista regime, a band of freedom fighters, anchored by Fidel Castro, marched through the Cuban capital city of Havana. Upon his arrival, Castro immediately seized control of the Cuban government and declared himself the highest executive of the island nation, Premier of Cuba. In April of 1959, Castro visited the United States in order to gain support for his policies in leading Cuba. The majority of Americans warmly embraced Castro, assuming that this charismatic leader would guide Cuba to democracy (Cuba). Some Americans remained cautious in accepting Castro, however, primarily disturbed by his previously demonstrated socialist sympathies. In the following month, Americans were given reasons to become anti-Castro as the Premier took hold American owned sugar plantations, Cubas multi-national companies, and the nations petroleum holdings (Cuba). By the end of 1959, the nation began to show signs of Communist involvement. Communist affiliated groups took control of the nations military, bureaucracy, and labor movement, and Soviet interest in the island increased. In February of 1960, Anastas Mikoyan, vice-prime minister of the Soviet Union, came to Cuba. . . . A major topic [of the meeting] was the Soviet Unions purchase of Cuban sugar and [the Cuban] purchase of Russian oil (Franqui 66). Following the meeting, the Soviet Union entered into a trade agreement with the USSR, causing the United States to drastically limit the import of Cuban sugar into the nation. In response, Cuba nationalized all remaining American properties and negotiated an expanded trade agreement and loans with the Soviets, causing the United States to break all diplomatic relations with the country (Cuba). Before the end of 1960, the USSR had begun sending military aid to the Cubans. (Cuba) The U. S. government was by now convinced that Cuba had become a Communist state (Dolan 92-93). The falling of Cuba into a Communist regime proved extremely important to the U. S., primarily due to Cubas proximity to the United States, only 90 miles. In addition, there were reports that the Soviet Union intended to make a staging base out of Cuba for the  communization of the other Latin-American countries and rumors that construction projects inside Cuba appeared to be designed for launching missiles (Rivero 170). To stop the spread of Communism in the Western Hemisphere, Americans felt that the islands government had to be toppled (Dolan 93). Upon hearing from Cuban exiles that a great deal of unrest had been present on the island, Washington saw the time as ripe for an invasion attempt (Rivero 183). The U.S. government put the Central Intelligence Agency in charge of plotting the attempt, along with officers from the Pentagon. The goal of the CIA-planned attempt would be to mask American involvement in the coup, so that the United States could not encounter accusations of illegally endangering the sovereignty of an established foreign government (Dolan 93). The plan entailed using Cuban exiles to carry out an uprising, seemingly attempting to liberate their country. Following the planning of the invasion, the CIA utilized their Guatemalan bases in training 1,300 exiles (Dolan 93). News of the supposedly secret plan leaked to Castro, who accused Washington of planning the worst sort of intervention in the islands affairs and damned the United States for dropping the attitude of neutrality it had long professed in regard to Cuba (93). The Premier put the islands defense forces on alert and ordered them to prepare and be ready for an attack. On March 29, 1961, President John F. Kennedy gave the CIA permission to proceed with the launch the Cuban invasion. Changes were made to the plan however, the most important being the ban of U.S. air support of the campaign, excluding air attacks on three Cuban air bases (Rivero 184). Along with the ban came the necessity of a simultaneous mass uprising by the Cuban people (184); without mass popular support, the invasion was doomed to failure. Two days prior to the invasion, B-26 bombers attacked three crucial Cuban air bases, San Antonio, Cubas main base, Camp Liberty in Havana, Castros main headquarters, and the military airport at Santiago de Cuba (Rivero 184). A second wave of B-26 strikes was planned as well, but was called off by President Kennedy, who was suspected to have felt that strong U.S. participation would threaten a war with Russia (Dolan 95). The cancellation of the second group of air strikes left Castro with one-third of his air  force and the goal of destroying the entire air force unfulfilled. Two days after the air strikes took place, approximately 1,500 CIA-supported Cuban exiles landed near the Bay of Pigs. The men were accompanied by old, unmarked American B-26 bombers that dropped leaflets urging the Cuban people to rise against Castro and join the attack force (Dolan 93). The invaders assumed that the leaflets would draw the widespread support of Cubans unhappy with their government. In the three days in which the people would supposedly aid in holding off Castros forces, the invaders were to set up a provisional government and appeal for American help. From there, the United States would recognize the provisional government and intervene in overthrowing the Castro regime (93). The CIA plan assumed excessively, mostly due to the optimism derived from the agencys previous successes in staging coups in Guatemala and Iran, and all of the invasion plans resulted in complete failure: The expected assistance did not come from the islands dissidents. On being hit by Castros air force, the attackers asked that U.S. Navy jets be sent to help them. The planes, however, never appeared, due to the Kennedy-issued ban on U.S. air involvement (Dolan 95). After two days, Castros forces had thoroughly suppressed the attack, killing 150 of the men, and capturing approximately 1,200 of the attackers (95). According to the authors of Cuba and the United States: Troubled Neighbors, Kennedy had never liked the idea (Dolan 95) of an American-sponsored invasion of Cuba, mostly due to his belief that it would undoubtedly fail. The plan had been created under the Eisenhower administration, and Kennedy had little input in its creation. Nevertheless, the President allowed the invasion to occur, and despite his opposition to the whole affair, he accepter full responsibility for its failure because he was in office at the time it was staged (95). While Kennedy had been assured that the plan he approved would be both secret and successful, he discovered too late that it was too large to remain secret and too small to succeed (Wyden 310). Kennedy was greatly upset by the failure of the invasion, and he held himself personally responsible, for both the lives of the men who died as well as for the 1,200 men whom his government had helped send to their imprisonment (qtd. in 310). Kennedy viewed the failure as the ultimate  failure of his career (310), and from the defeat, his prestige suffered a severe blow (Dolan 96). About a year and a half later, however, he was to regain that lost prestige (96), in his impressive handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Works Consulted Cuba Exhibit History. The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza. 2001 . Dolan, Edward E., and Margaret M. Scariano. Cuba and the United States: Troubled Neighbors. New York: Franklin Watts, 1987. Franqui, Carlos. Family Portrait with Fidel. New York: Random House, 1984. Rivero, Nicholas. Castros Cuba: An American Dilemma. New York: Van Rees P, 1962. Sierra, J.A.. Timetable History of Cuba: After the Revolution. 27 Aug. 2001 www.historyofcuba.com/history/timetbl4.htm Wyden, Peter. Bay of Pigs: The Untold Story. New York: Simon, 1979.

Conformity in the 1950s Essay -- American Culture History Conformity E

Conformity in the 1950s During the post WWII period in America, the face of the nation changed greatly under the presidency of Truman and Eisenhower. America underwent another era of good feelings as they thought themselves undefeatable and superior over the rest of the world. Communism was the American enemy and American sought to rid the world of it. Because of the extreme paranoia caused by Communism, conformity became an ideal way to distinguish American Culture from the rest. Conformity became a part of every American Life to a large extent. It became evident through the medium of culture, society and politics throughout the era of the 50s. When WWII ended, Americans were left in the hands of Harry Truman. Known as an aggressive Cold War fighter, he led Americans against...

In Contempt By Christopher Darden: A Review :: essays research papers

In Contempt by Christopher Darden: A Review   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  This report is based upon the book In Contempt, written by Christopher A. Darden with Jess Walter. This book is published by Regan Books an imprint of Harper Collins Publishers and is copyrighted 1996 by Christopher A. Darden. Introduction of the Author   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The book In Contempt was written by Christopher A. Darden. Chris Darden is famous for being one of the prosecuting attorneys in the court case, The People vs. Simpson. He has worked hard his whole life to reach the status he has now achieved. He proved to America that even though he wasn't a high-priced private lawyer that he could present a well-thought out and planned case under tremendous pressure he and the other prosecutors had to endure during the Simpson case. Summary   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  I found this book to be very well thought out and well written. Most people would assume that this book was written with the intentions of making a quick-buck off the misfortune of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. I, however, do not believe this to be true. The way that he speaks of the victims in the book, and the way he spoke of them before and after the trial shows that he really cared about the lives of these people that he didn't even know. He even went as far as to say in the book that this was the first case that affected him personally and emotionally. As one may expect the majority of this book is taken up with the Simpson case but, chapters two through six detail his life from birth, his childhood in a working class district of Richmond, California, and becoming a district attorney of Los Angeles in 1981. Chapters two and three mostly consist of stories of him and his brother, Michael, stealing from local stores or his brothers drug deals. When Michael hit his mid-teens hestarted selling marijuana off the front porch of the house and Chris was his lookout. In return, he was told that he would be cut in on the action (but never was). No matter what, Michael always told Chris never to use drugs. Throughout the book Chris Darden refers to his brother as a good role model for him no matter what he did.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  I feel the purpose of Chris Darden writing this book is to try to show the hardships he had to go through as a black man trying to become a lawyer. Also I feel that he is trying to reveal the truth behind what was happening in the Simpson case. Body of the Review In Contempt By Christopher Darden: A Review :: essays research papers In Contempt by Christopher Darden: A Review   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  This report is based upon the book In Contempt, written by Christopher A. Darden with Jess Walter. This book is published by Regan Books an imprint of Harper Collins Publishers and is copyrighted 1996 by Christopher A. Darden. Introduction of the Author   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The book In Contempt was written by Christopher A. Darden. Chris Darden is famous for being one of the prosecuting attorneys in the court case, The People vs. Simpson. He has worked hard his whole life to reach the status he has now achieved. He proved to America that even though he wasn't a high-priced private lawyer that he could present a well-thought out and planned case under tremendous pressure he and the other prosecutors had to endure during the Simpson case. Summary   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  I found this book to be very well thought out and well written. Most people would assume that this book was written with the intentions of making a quick-buck off the misfortune of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. I, however, do not believe this to be true. The way that he speaks of the victims in the book, and the way he spoke of them before and after the trial shows that he really cared about the lives of these people that he didn't even know. He even went as far as to say in the book that this was the first case that affected him personally and emotionally. As one may expect the majority of this book is taken up with the Simpson case but, chapters two through six detail his life from birth, his childhood in a working class district of Richmond, California, and becoming a district attorney of Los Angeles in 1981. Chapters two and three mostly consist of stories of him and his brother, Michael, stealing from local stores or his brothers drug deals. When Michael hit his mid-teens hestarted selling marijuana off the front porch of the house and Chris was his lookout. In return, he was told that he would be cut in on the action (but never was). No matter what, Michael always told Chris never to use drugs. Throughout the book Chris Darden refers to his brother as a good role model for him no matter what he did.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  I feel the purpose of Chris Darden writing this book is to try to show the hardships he had to go through as a black man trying to become a lawyer. Also I feel that he is trying to reveal the truth behind what was happening in the Simpson case. Body of the Review

Paper Evaluation

How to Read a Scientific Paper BIOC/MCB 568 — Fall 2010 John W. Little and Roy Parker–University of Arizona Back to 568 home page Translation into Belorussian The main purpose of a scientific paper is to report new results, usually experimental, and to relate these results to previous knowledge in the field. Papers are one of the most important ways that we communicate with one another. In understanding how to read a paper, we need to start at the beginning with a few preliminaries. We then address the main questions that will enable you to understand and evaluate the paper. . How are papers organized? 2. How do I prepare to read a paper, particularly in an area not so familiar to me? 3. What difficulties can I expect? 4. How do I understand and evaluate  the contents of the paper? 1. Organization of a paper In most scientific journals, scientific papers follow a standard format. They are divided into several sections, and each section serves a specific purpose in the paper. We first describe the standard format, then some variations on that format. A paper begins with a short  Summary  or  Abstract. Generally, it gives a brief background to the topic; describes concisely the major findings of the paper; and relates these findings to the field of study. As will be seen, this logical order is also that of the paper as a whole. The next section of the paper is the  Introduction. In many journals this section is not given a title. As its name implies, this section presents the background knowledge necessary for the reader to understand why the findings of the paper are an advance on the knowledge in the field. Typically, the Introduction describes first the accepted state of knowledge in a specialized field; then it focuses more specifically on a particular aspect, usually describing a finding or set of findings that led directly to the work described in the paper. If the authors are testing a hypothesis, the source of that hypothesis is spelled out, findings are given with which it is consistent, and one or more predictions are given. In many papers, one or several major conclusions of the paper are presented at the end of this section, so that the reader knows the major answers to the questions just posed. Papers more descriptive or comparative in nature may begin with an introduction to an area which interests the authors, or the need for a broader database. The next section of most papers is the  Materials and Methods. In some journals this section is the last one. Its purpose is to describe the materials used in the experiments and the methods by which the experiments were carried out. In principle, this description should be detailed enough to allow other researchers to replicate the work. In practice, these descriptions are often highly compressed, and they often refer back to previous papers by the authors. The third section is usually  Results. This section describes the experiments and the reasons they were done. Generally, the logic of the Results section follows directly from that of the Introduction. That is, the Introduction poses the questions addressed in the early part of Results. Beyond this point, the organization of Results differs from one paper to another. In some papers, the results are presented without extensive discussion, which is reserved for the following section. This is appropriate when the data in the early parts do not need to be interpreted extensively to understand why the later experiments were done. In other papers, results are given, and then they are interpreted, perhaps taken together with other findings not in the paper, so as to give the logical basis for later experiments. The fourth section is the  Discussion. This section serves several purposes. First, the data in the paper are interpreted; that is, they are analyzed to show what the authors believe the data show. Any limitations to the interpretations should be acknowledged, and fact should clearly be separated from speculation. Second, the findings of the paper are related to other findings in the field. This serves to show how the findings contribute to knowledge, or correct the errors of previous work. As stated, some of these logical arguments are often found in the Results when it is necessary to clarify why later experiments were carried out. Although you might argue that in this case the discussion material should be presented in the Introduction, more often you cannot grasp its significance until the first part of Results is given. Finally, papers usually have a short  Acknowledgements  section, in which various contributions of other workers are recognized, followed by a  Reference  list giving references to papers and other works cited in the text. Papers also contain several  Figures  and  Tables. These contain data described in the paper. The figures and tables also have legends, whose purpose is to give details of the particular experiment or experiments shown there. Typically, if a procedure is used only once in a paper, these details are described in Materials and Methods, and the Figure or Table legend refers back to that description. If a procedure is used repeatedly, however, a general description is given in Materials and Methods, and the details for a particular experiment are given in the Table or Figure legend. Variations on the organization of a paper In most scientific journals, the above format is followed. Occasionally, the Results and Discussion are combined, in cases in which the data need extensive discussion to allow the reader to follow the train of logic developed in the course of the research. As stated, in some journals, Materials and Methods follows the Discussion. In certain older papers, the Summary was given at the end of the paper. The formats for two widely-read journals,  Science  and  Nature, differ markedly from the above outline. These journals reach a wide audience, and many authors wish to publish in them; accordingly, the space limitations on the papers are severe, and the prose is usually highly compressed. In both journals, there are no discrete sections, except for a short abstract and a reference list. In  Science, the abstract is self-contained; in  Nature, the abstract also serves as a brief introduction to the paper. Experimental details are usually given either in endnotes (for  Science) or Figure and Table legends and a short Methods section (in  Nature). Authors often try to circumvent length limitations by putting as much material as possible in these places. In addition, an increasingly common practice is to put a substantial fraction of the less-important material, and much of the methodology, into Supplemental Data that can be accessed online. Many other journals also have length limitations, which similarly lead to a need for conciseness. For example, the  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences  (PNAS) has a six-page limit;  Cell  severely edits many papers to shorten them, and has a short word limit in the abstract; and so on. In response to the pressure to edit and make the paper concise, many authors choose to condense or, more typically, omit the logical connections that would make the flow of the paper easy. In addition, much of the background that would make the paper accessible to a wider audience is condensed or omitted, so that the less-informed reader has to consult a review article or previous papers to make sense of what the issues are and why they are important. Finally, again, authors often circumvent page limitations by putting crucial details into the Figure and Table legends, especially when (as in  PNAS) these are set in smaller type. Fortunately, the recent widespread practice of putting less-critical material into online supplemental material has lessened the pressure to compress content so drastically, but it is still a problem for older papers. Back to outline 2. Reading a scientific paper Although it is tempting to read the paper straight through as you would do with most text, it is more efficient to organize the way you read. Generally, you first read the Abstract in order to understand the major points of the work. The extent of background assumed by different authors, and allowed by the journal, also varies as just discussed. One extremely useful habit in reading a paper is to read the Title and the Abstract and, before going on, review in your mind what you know about the topic. This serves several purposes. First, it clarifies whether you in fact know enough background to appreciate the paper. If not, you might choose to read the background in a review or textbook, as appropriate. Second, it refreshes your memory about the topic. Third, and perhaps most importantly, it helps ou as the reader integrate the new information into your previous knowledge about the topic. That is, it is used as a part of the self-education process that any professional must continue throughout his/her career. If you are very familiar with the field, the Introduction can be skimmed or even skipped. As stated above, the logical flow of most papers goes straight from the Introduction to Results; accordingly, the pape r should be read in that way as well, skipping Materials and Methods and referring back to this section as needed to clarify what was actually done. A reader familiar with the field who is interested in a particular point given in the Abstract often skips directly to the relevant section of the Results, and from there to the Discussion for interpretation of the findings. This is only easy to do if the paper is organized properly. Codewords Many papers contain shorthand phrases that we might term ‘codewords', since they have connotations that are generally not explicit. In many papers, not all the experimental data are shown, but referred to by â€Å"(data not shown)†. This is often for reasons of space; the practice is accepted when the authors have documented their competence to do the experiments properly (usually in previous papers). Two other codewords are â€Å"unpublished data† and â€Å"preliminary data†. The former can either mean that the data are not of publishable quality or that the work is part of a larger story that will one day be published. The latter means different things to different people, but one connotation is that the experiment was done only once. Back to outline 3. Difficulties in reading a paper Several difficulties confront the reader, particularly one who is not familiar with the field. As discussed above, it may be necessary to bring yourself up to speed before beginning a paper, no matter how well written it is. Be aware, however, that although some problems may lie in the reader, many are the fault of the writer. One major problem is that many papers are poorly written. Some scientists are poor writers. Many others do not enjoy writing, and do not take the time or effort to ensure that the prose is clear and logical. Also, the author is typically so familiar with the material that it is difficult to step back and see it from the point of view of a reader not familiar with the topic and for whom the paper is just another of a large stack of papers that need to be read. Bad writing has several consequences for the reader. First, the logical connections are often left out. Instead of saying why an experiment was done, or what ideas were being tested, the experiment is simply described. Second, papers are often cluttered with a great deal of jargon. Third, the authors often do not provide a clear road-map through the paper; side issues and fine points are given equal air time with the main logical thread, and the reader loses this thread. In better writing, these side issues are relegated to Figure legends, Materials and Methods, or online Supplemental Material, or else clearly identified as side issues, so as not to distract the reader. Another major difficulty arises when the reader seeks to understand just what the experiment was. All too often, authors refer back to previous papers; these refer in turn to previous papers in a long chain. Often that chain ends in a paper that describes several methods, and it is unclear which was used. Or the chain ends in a journal with severe space limitations, and the description is so compressed as to be unclear. More often, the descriptions are simply not well-written, so that it is ambiguous what was done. Other difficulties arise when the authors are uncritical about their experiments; if they firmly believe a particular model, they may not be open-minded about other possibilities. These may not be tested experimentally, and may even go unmentioned in the Discussion. Still another, related problem is that many authors do not clearly distinguish between fact and speculation, especially in the Discussion. This makes it difficult for the reader to know how well-established are the â€Å"facts† under discussion. One final problem arises from the sociology of science. Many authors are ambitious and wish to publish in trendy journals. As a consequence, they overstate the importance of their findings, or put a speculation into the title in a way that makes it sound like a well-established finding. Another example of this approach is the â€Å"Assertive Sentence Title†, which presents a major conclusion of the paper as a declarative sentence (such as â€Å"LexA is a repressor of the  recA  and  lexA  genes†). This trend is becoming prevalent; look at recent issues of  Cell  for examples. It's not so bad when the assertive sentence is well-documented (as it was in the example given), but all too often the assertive sentence is nothing more than a speculation, and the hasty reader may well conclude that the issue is settled when it isn't. These last factors represent the public relations side of a competitive field. This behavior is understandable, if not praiseworthy. But when the authors mislead the reader as to what is firmly established and what is speculation, it is hard, especially for the novice, to know what is settled and what is not. A careful evaluation is necessary, as we now discuss. Back to outline 4. Evaluating a paper A thorough understanding and evaluation of a paper involves answering several questions: a. What  questions  does the paper address? b. What are the main  conclusions  of the paper? . What  evidence  supports those conclusions? d. Do the data actually  support  the conclusions? e. What is the  quality  of the evidence? f. Why are the conclusions  important? a. What questions does the paper address? Before addressing this question, we need to be aware that research in biochemistry and molecular biology can be of several different types: |Type of research |Question ask ed: | |Descriptive |What is there? What do we see? | |Comparative |How does it compare to other organisms? Are our findings | | |general? | |Analytical |How does it work? What is the mechanism? | Descriptive  research often takes place in the early stages of our understanding of a system. We can't formulate hypotheses about how a system works, or what its interconnections are, until we know what is there. Typical descriptive approaches in molecular biology are DNA sequencing and DNA microarray approaches. In biochemistry, one could regard x-ray crystallography as a descriptive endeavor. Comparative  research often takes place when we are asking how general a finding is. Is it specific to my particular organism, or is it broadly applicable? A typical comparative approach would be comparing the sequence of a gene from one organism with that from the other organisms in which that gene is found. One example of this is the observation that the actin genes from humans and budding yeast are 89% identical and 96% similar. Analytical  research generally takes place when we know enough to begin formulating hypotheses about how a system works, about how the parts are interconnected, and what the causal connections are. A typical analytical approach would be to devise two (or more) alternative hypotheses about how a system operates. These hypotheses would all be consistent with current knowledge about the system. Ideally, the approach would devise a set of experiments todistinguish among these hypotheses. A classic example is the Meselson-Stahl experiment. Of course, many papers are a combination of these approaches. For instance, researchers might sequence a gene from their model organism; compare its sequence to homologous genes from other organisms; use this comparison to devise a hypothesis for the function of the gene product; and test this hypothesis by making a site-directed change in the gene and asking how that affects the phenotype of the organism and/or the biochemical function of the gene product. Being aware that not all papers have the same approach can orient you towards recognizing the major questions that a paper addresses. What are these questions? In a well-written paper, as described above, the Introduction generally goes from the general to the specific, eventually framing a question or set of questions. This is a good starting place. In addition, the results of experiments usually raise additional questions, which the authors may attempt to answer. These questions usually become evident only in the Results section. Back to Evaluating a paper b. What are the main conclusions of the paper? This question can often be answered in a preliminary way by studying the abstract of the paper. Here the authors highlight what they think are the key points. This is not enough, because abstracts often have severe space constraints, but it can serve as a starting point. Still, you need to read the paper with this question in mind. Back to Evaluating a paper c. What evidence supports those conclusions? Generally, you can get a pretty good idea about this from the Results section. The description of the findings points to the relevant tables and figures. This is easiest when there is one primary experiment to support a point. However, it is often the case that several different experiments or approaches combine to support a particular conclusion. For example, the first experiment might have several possible interpretations, and the later ones are designed to distinguish among these. In the ideal case, the Discussion begins with a section of the form â€Å"Three lines of evidence provide support for the conclusion that†¦ First, †¦ Second,†¦ etc. † However, difficulties can arise when the paper is poorly written (see above). The authors often do not present a concise summary of this type, leaving you to make it yourself. A skeptic might argue that in such cases the logical structure of the argument is weak and is omitted on purpose! In any case, you need to be sure that you understand the relationship between the data and the conclusions. Back to Evaluating a paper d. Do the data actually support the conclusions? One major advantage of doing this is that it helps you to evaluate whether the conclusion is sound. If we assume for the moment that the data are believable (see next section), it still might be the case that the data do not actually support the conclusion the authors wish to reach. There are at least two different ways this can happen: i. The logical connection between the data and the interpretation is not sound ii. There might be other interpretations that might be consistent with the data. One important aspect to look for is whether the authors take multiple approaches to answering a question. Do they have multiple lines of evidence, from different directions, supporting their conclusions? If there is only one line of evidence, it is more likely that it could be interpreted in a different way; multiple approaches make the argument more persuasive. Another thing to look for is implicit or hidden assumptions used by the authors in interpreting their data. This can be hard to do, unless you understand the field thoroughly. Back to Evaluating a paper e. What is the quality of that evidence? This is the hardest question to answer, for novices and experts alike. At the same time, it is one of the most important skills to learn as a young scientist. It involves a major reorientation from being a relatively passive consumer of information and ideas to an active producer and critical evaluator of them. This is not easy and takes years to master. Beginning scientists often wonder, â€Å"Who am I to question these authorities? After all the paper was published in a top journal, so the authors must have a high standing, and the work must have received a critical review by experts. † Unfortunately, that's not always the case. In any case, developing your ability to evaluate evidence is one of the hardest and most important aspects of learning to be a critical scientist and reader. How can you evaluate the evidence? First, you need to understand thoroughly the methods used in the experiments. Often these are described poorly or not at all (see  above). The details are often missing, but more importantly the authors usually assume that the reader has a general knowledge of common methods in the field (such as immunoblotting, cloning, genetic methods, or DNase I footprinting). If you lack this knowledge, as discussed  above  you have to make the extra effort to inform yourself about the basic methodology before you can evaluate the data. Sometimes you have to trace back the details of the methods if they are important. The increasing availability of journals on the Web has made this easier by obviating the need to find a hard-copy issue,  e. . in the library. A  comprehensive listing of journals  relevant to this course, developed by the Science Library, allows access to most of the listed volumes from any computer at the University; a  second list  at the Arizona Health Sciences Library includes some other journals, again from University computers. Second,  you need to know the  limitations  of the methodology. E very method has limitations, and if the experiments are not done correctly they can't be interpreted. For instance, an immunoblot is not a very quantitative method. Moreover, in a certain range of protein the signal increases (that is, the signal is at least roughly â€Å"linear†), but above a certain amount of protein the signal no longer increases. Therefore, to use this method correctly one needs a standard curve that shows that the experimental lanes are in a linear range. Often, the authors will not show this standard curve, but they should state that such curves were done. If you don't see such an assertion, it could of course result from bad writing, but it might also not have been done. If it wasn't done, a dark band might mean â€Å"there is this much protein or an indefinite amount more†. Third, importantly, you need to distinguish between what the data show and what the authors  say  they show. The latter is really an interpretation on the authors' part, though it is generally not stated to be an interpretation. Papers usually state something like â€Å"the data in Fig. x show that †¦ â€Å". This is the authors' interpretation of the data. Do you interpret it the same way? You need to look carefully at the data to ensure that they really do show what the authors say they do. You can only do this effectively if you understand the methods and their limitations. Fourth, it is often helpful to look at the original journal, or its electronic counterpart, instead of a photocopy. Particularly for half-tone figures such as photos of gels or autoradiograms, the contrast is distorted, usually increased, by photocopying, so that the data are misrepresented. Fifth, you should ask if the proper controls are present. Controls tell us that nature is behaving the way we expect it to under the conditions of the experiment (seehere  for more details). If the controls are missing, it is harder to be confident that the results really show what is happening in the experiment. You should try to develop the habit of asking â€Å"where are the controls? † and looking for them. Back to Evaluating a paper f. Why are the conclusions important? Do the conclusions make a significant advance in our knowledge? Do they lead to new insights, or even new research directions? Again, answering these questions requires that you understand the field relatively well. Back to Evaluating a paper Back to outline Back to 568 home page [pic] BIOC/MCB 568 — University of Arizona http://www. biochem. arizona. edu/classes/bioc568/bioc568. htm Last modified August 18, 2010 All contents copyright  © 2010. All rights reserved. How to review a scientific paper? |Contents | |  [hide] | |1  Why me? | |2  Am I a suitable reviewer? | |3  How does the review process work? | |4  How do I start? | |5  What to look for? | |6  How to put it in words? | |7  What to recommend? | |8  How to approach a revision? | |9  I’ve done all this work†¦ what do I get out of it? | |10  Further reading | [edit]Why me? You may be surprised that you may be asked as a peer-reviewer for an authorative journal when you yourself are still a PhD-student and with a limited number of published articles. This does not make you an inappropriate reviewer. You may have been ‘found’ in several ways: 1. When submitting a paper, you will often be asked to fill out contact details and area’s of expertise and/or keywords. Journal editors can screen the journal database for potential reviewers with research expertise matching that of the paper. 2. You could have been requested as a reviewer by the submitting authors 3. You could have been suggested as a reviewer by another reviewer (when declining an invitation to review a paper, one is usually asked to suggest an alternative reviewer) or an editor may know you personally. 4. You could have been found based on previous articles you’ve published that were referenced in the submitted manuscript, or simply found on pubmed. [edit]Am I a suitable reviewer? If you seriously question your ability to review the manuscript, you should decline the review invitation. This may be because you are not familiar with the subject, because you are biased towards the submitted work (e. g. ecause of personal relations with the authors, or because the paper is highly competitive with your own work), or just because you feel too inexperienced. However, in the latter case, you may consider accepting the review and asking a more experienced colleague to assist you with the review. Also, it is an excellent way to learn how to peer-review an article by first assistin g colleague in their reviews. Please always keep confidentiality in mind. Contact the editor if you have any questions. [edit]How does the review process work? 1. The editor and ultimately editorial board decide on the fate of the manuscript. . After a manuscript is assigned to an editor, it is read by the editor and he or she decides if the paper is sent out for peer-review. Occasionally, a triage review is commissioned, where an external reviewer is asked for an opinion if the paper should be sent out for full review. 3. Reviewers are invited and receive an abstract of the manuscript. Usually, 2 or more reviewers are sought. 4. After acceptance of the invitation for review, reviewers receive the full manuscript. If a reviewer then discovers that he or she is not suitable after all, the invitation for review can still be declined. 5. The reviewers write their reviews. Usually, this consists of a) filling out a form with scores (for novelty, technical excellence, appropriateness of manuscript preparation, etcetera), b) comments to the authors, and c) comments to the editor. Typically, an advice regarding overall priority for publication and/or acceptance is asked for, which is blinded to the authors. 6. After the editor has received the reviewer comments, he may decide to commission another reviewer, particularly if reviewer opinions are contradictory or if there is a need for specific expertise, e. g. additional review by a statistical expert. . After all reviews have been completed, the editor and editorial board decide to either a. accept the manuscript, b. accept the manuscript after (minor) revision, c. reject the article, but invite to revise the manuscript, or d. reject the manuscript. 8. Note that an editor will generally reserve the right to edit your reviewer comments to the author. Over-enthusiastic com pliments may be removed if the editor eventually decides to reject the paper. Also, you may see that your comments the editor are also passed on to the authors if the editor feels this is appropriate. 9. If a manuscript is resubmitted after revision, it is usually resent to the original reviewers. [edit]How do I start? Before reading the manuscript, make sure you know the aims and scope of the journal. Read the manuscript and supplementary files for a first time, without spending too much time on details. Consider reading additional literature, such as relating articles by the same authors. Then re-read the manuscript in detail and try to follow the line of thought of the authors. Identify the hypothesis, key findings and assess if the (discussion of) the results adequately reflects back on the original hypothesis. Critically assess the methods and representation of data in the text, tables and figures. Draft a review. Re-read the manuscript and re-read you review. [edit]What to look for? Visit the journal’s website, where criteria for reviewers are commonly supplied. Also, see if there is a score-sheet as this will also tell you what the editors would like you to look for. As a general check-list, consider the following points (taken from the BMJ website): †¢ Is the paper important? †¢ Is the work original? Does the work add enough to what is already in the literature? †¢ Is there a clear message? Does the paper read well and make sense? †¢ Is this journal the right place for this paper? Scientific reliability: †¢ Abstract/summary — does it reflect accurately what the paper says? †¢ Research question — is it clearly defined and appropriately answered? †¢ Overall design of study — is it adequate? †¢ Participants studied   are they dequately described and their conditions defined? †¢ Methods — are they adequately described? For randomised trials: CONSORT Ethical? †¢ Results — does it answer the research question? Credible? Well presented? †¢ Usefulness of tables and figures? Is the quality good enough? Can some eliminated? Is the data correct in the tables? †¢ Interpretation and conclusions — are they warranted by and sufficiently derived from/focused on the data? Message clear? †¢ References — are they up to date and relevant? Any glaring omissions? [edit]How to put it in words? As a reviewer, it is your task to objectively assess the strengths and weaknesses in a manuscript, provide constructive criticism and list suggestions for improvement. It may help to organize your reviewer comments to the author as follows: – a brief summary of the findings in the article. This helps organize your own grasp on the data in the article. Also, it helps the associate editor and editorial board to understand the content of the manuscript. Finally, it shows the author that you have read and understood the manuscript. – consider giving a general comment on the article on e. g. novelty and overall impression of the data and manuscript preparation. -list major comments. Number them for clarity. Major comments are comments, questions and/or suggestions that are in your view essential points that need to be appropriately addressed for the manuscript to become acceptable for publication. list minor comments such as typographic errors or suggestions for additional non-essential data to be included. Also keep in mind: Be kind. Even a ‘bad’ paper has generally required substantial investment of time and effort by the authors. Do not be tempted by the reviewer anonymousity to make unkind remarks. Be fair. Try to be objectively critical. Do not hesi tate to identify flaws in the manuscript, but keep eye for balancing criticism with potential strengths of the manuscript, technical limitations and the nature of the journal. If you give criticism, also give a motivation, including literature references if applicable. Be concise. Be ‘action-able’. Providing practical suggestions for textual changes or additional experiments helps convey what you think would improve the manuscript better than simple criticism. [edit]What to recommend? You give advice to the editor regarding the manuscript and this advice generally includes an advice on how the paper should be handled. It is a misconception that reviewers decide if a paper is accepted: the editor and editorial board ultimately decide. This also means that it is essential to refrain from including an advice on acceptance or rejection of a paper in the review comments that are provided. Editors may edit your comments if you imply acceptance or rejection. Consider recommending a major revision if you feel the paper would become acceptable for publication if your suggestions are adequately addressed. If you feel that the manuscript would be insufficient for publication even after revision, e. g. based on limited novelty, rejection would be more appropriate. [edit]How to approach a revision? If a manuscript is returned to the authors with the invitation to resubmit after revision, you will commonly be asked to review the revised manuscript and author correspondence with replies to your comments. However, this is at the editor’s discretion. If you receive a revised manuscript, focus on the response to your own review and in principle limit yourself to the points you previously raised. See if the authors have satisfactorily addressed your comments. Check with your original comments to see if the authors have included all the points you raised. It is not good practice if you come up with new criticisms regarding points that you could have identified during your first assessment of the manuscript. Also, try to finish your re-evaluation with some priority as this is customary with resubmissions and will prevent excessive delay of anuscript publication. If you had numbered your major comments and had provided action-able suggestions, you will now appreciate the importance of doing so. [edit]I’ve done all this work†¦ what do I get out of it? Writing a good review takes costly time. However, there are several reasons why every researcher should write peer-reviews. First, for you as a researcher, you will find that participating in the reviewing process will increase the quality of your own work and likelihood of getting your articles accepted. You’re given an insider’s view of the reviewing process. Also, going through the process of peer-reviewing a manuscript and reading other reviewer’s comments, will help you critically assess your own manuscript more effectively. Second, for you as a researcher, building a track record of journals that request your services as a reviewer may be a component of your curriculum vitae. Also, a track record of good reviews will enhance your reputations with the editors. Third, as a reviewer, you’re given an early peak at novel unpublished data. This brings a major responsibility and breaching confidentiality to scoop a submitting author would be a serious offence. However, it may give an incentive to (re)direct your experiments so that you have a ‘head-start’ after eventual publication of the manuscript you’re reviewing. Fourth, writing a review means you are participating in the social culture of research. You are helping the editor that invited you. You are making peer-review possible for the submitting author and ultimately, you are enabling the continuing process of keeping a high quality level of science. Finally, invited editorial comments are often commissioned to reviewers that provided a good track record of peer reviews and showed profound insight in he reviewed manuscript. [edit]Further reading http://www. people. vcu. edu/~aslee/referee. htm http://www. medscape. com/viewarticle/409692_3 Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA. 1997 Mar 19;277(11):927-34 Downloadable from e. g. [here] Home  Ã‚  Ã‚  About  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Cont act  Ã‚  Ã‚  Contribute  Ã‚  Ã‚  Feedback †¢ Log in / create account ? Research Topics ? Learning Resources ? Dutch Investigators ? Dutch Publications ? Clinical Trials ? Practical PhD guide ? Useful links pic] ? Online forum [pic] ? Agenda ? PLAN/Courses ? Newsletters ? Spotlights ? Photo Gallery ? Jobs/Trainees Top of Form [pic][pic]  Ã‚  [pic] Bottom of Form Supported by: [pic] [pic] [pic] | | | | ? About NIER ? Disclaimers ? Views: 5,040 ? Modified: 13:53, 26 January 2009. ? Hosted by Xentax Foundation |Reviewing a Manuscript | |for Publication | |Allen S. Lee | |Professor, Department of Information Systems   | |Eminent Scholar, Information Systems Research Institute | |School of Business   | |Virginia Commonwealth University | |http://www. eople. vcu. edu/~aslee/ | |Published as an invited note in | |Journal of Operations Management   | |Volume 13, Number 1 (July 1995), pp. 7-92. | |If you copy, download, or circulate this paper, please simply inform the author (at  [email  protected] mit. edu) | |that you are doing so. | |This paper is based on remarks that the author prepared for presentation at the New Faculty Workshop held at | |the 23rdAnnual Meeting of the Decision Sciences Institute in Miami Beach, Florida, November 22, 1991. |  Ã‚   | |[pic] | |Abstract | |This paper offers suggestions about how to review a manuscript submitted for publication in the fields of | |management information systems, organizational studies, operations management, and management in general. |Rationales for the suggestions and ill ustrative sample comments are provided. | |  Ã‚  Ã‚   | |[pic] | |Contents | |Abstract | |Action 1:  Ã‚  Ã‚   Start out with your own summary of the manuscript. | |Action 2:  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Let the editor and author know what your expertise does, and does not, cover. |Action 3:  Ã‚  Ã‚   Give â€Å"action-able† advice. | |Action 4:  Ã‚  Ã‚   Convince the authors by arguing from their own assumptions and framework. | |Action 5:  Ã‚  Ã‚   Provide both (1) your general, overall reaction and (2) a list of specific, numbered | |point-by-point comments. | |Action 6:  Ã‚  Ã‚   List the manuscript’s strengths. | |Action 7:  Ã‚  Ã‚   Quote, give the page number, or otherwise explicitly locate the parts of the manuscript to which | |you are referring. | |Action 8:  Ã‚  Ã‚   Offer comments on tables, figures, and diagrams. |Action 9:  Ã‚  Ã‚   Be kind. | |Action 10:  Ã‚  Ã‚   Be frank, in a tactful way, about your own emotional reaction. | |Action 11:  Ã‚  Ã ‚   Do some of your own library research. | |Action 12:  Ã‚  Ã‚   If rejecting the manuscript, suggest what future research efforts might examine. | |Action 13:  Ã‚  Ã‚   If recommending a revision, spell out alternative scenarios for how the revision could be done. | |Action 14:  Ã‚  Ã‚   Provide citations or a bibliography. | |Action 15:  Ã‚  Ã‚   Date your review. | |Why Review? |Conclusion | |  Ã‚   | |[pic] | | | |As management researchers, we regard the behavior of managers, systems professionals, and other organizational | |participants to be a manifestation of the values that they hold as members of their organization and their | |profession. In the same way, we may regard our own behaviors, as reviewers of manuscripts in the â€Å"double blind†| |reviewing process, to be a manifestation of the values that we hold as members of the community of scholars. As| |an author and editor, I have seen our community manifest the best and the worst of human values in the | |anonymous reviews offered on manuscripts submitted for publication. Some reviewers rise to the occasion and | |give extensive help, even though the anonymous reviewing process promises them nothing in return for their | |efforts. Other reviewers hide behind the anonymity of the reviewing process, offering negative remarks that | |they would not have the courage to voice in public. My immediate purpose is to offer suggestions, based on the | |reviews I have seen as an author and editor, about how to provide useful, kind, constructive, and responsible | |reviews of manuscripts submitted for publication. I offer these suggestions to my colleagues who review | |manuscripts submitted for publication in research journals in management information systems, organizational | studies, operations management, and other fields of management. | |1. Suggestions for Reviewing a Manuscript | |For many of the suggestions below, I offer sample comments to illustrate my points. I have based these comments| |on actual reviews. | |1. 1  Ã‚  Ã‚   Start out with Your Own Summary of the Manuscript | | | |As a reviewer for a manuscript, I was surprised, upon subsequently receiving the associate editor’s own review,| |to see that he began with a summary of the manuscript. After all, an author knows what his or her own | |manuscript is about, so why summarize it? | |Apparently, at least in this case, the summary was provided for the benefit of the senior editor, not | |necessarily the author. The associate editor’s review was, I realized, as much a recommendation to the senior | |editor as it was an explanation to the authors. Because a reviewer’s review is, in the same way, a | |recommendation to an editor, I have come to believe that a summary of the manuscript being considered is no | |less useful in the reviewer’s review. | |I now believe that an opening summary may also be useful to the manuscript’s author and to the reviewer himself| |or herself. For the author, how effectively the reviewer’s summary does or does not capture the gist of the | |manuscript may serve as one measure of how effectively the manuscript communicates its message. For the | |reviewer, the very exercise of composing a summary encourages and virtually assures a thorough reading of the | |manuscript. | |Opening summaries are also useful to the editor when the manuscript is controversial. Occasionally, as an | |editor, I have wondered if the different reviewers assigned to a controversial manuscript have actually been | |sent the same manuscript. An opening summary of the manuscript, presented from the reviewer’s own perspective, | |would be a big help to the editor when he or she is trying to reach a decision on a manuscript that evokes | |controversial reactions. |Some illustrative sample comments are: | |This paper represents a major effort to test two competing theories about user satisfaction with electronic | |mail†¦ The methodolo gy of the paper consists of†¦ The data were gathered from two field sites†¦ The major | |finding was that†¦ The contributions to theory and practice would appear to be†¦ | |  Ã‚   | |This manuscript pursues two somewhat conflicting goals. It attempts to†¦, while it also tries to†¦. The authors | |do a good job of the first one, but their treatment of the second one raises more questions than it answers. | | | |1.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Let the Editor and Author Know What Your Expertise Does, and Does Not, Cover | | | |By stating where you have expertise and, no less important, where you lack expertise, you will be helping the | |editor and author in their job of interpreting and weighing your comments. Reviewers, in voluntarily | |identifying where their expertise may be lacking with regard to the manuscript being reviewed, might even gain | |additional credibility for their claims about where they do have expertise. | |I read the paper from two perspectiv es: 1) someone who has employed the same methodology that the authors are | |using and 2) someone who is not familiar at all with the substantive area that the authors are investigating. | |My criticisms and suggestions are offered entirely from the first perspective. |For the reader, such as myself, who is unfamiliar with concepts X, Y, and Z, the authors present no helpful | |explanation of these concepts or justification for their inclusion in the study in the first place†¦Ã‚  Ã‚   | |  Ã‚   | |Another problem I had is that, probably like most of the people who read this journal, I am not deeply read in | |all three of the research fields that the authors draw upon. I cannot judge how well this paper builds on past | |research. | |   | |1. 3  Ã‚  Ã‚   Give â€Å"Action-able† Advice | |Advice stated in the form of do-able tasks is mutually advantageous to the author and the reviewer in the event| |that the editor asks for a revision. For the author, the advised actions point to a â€Å"fixed target† where he or | |she may aim the revision. For the reviewer, the advised actions (as further interpreted by the editor) may | |serve as the criteria on which to judge the revision. In contrast, a reviewer who offers vague generalities, | |and no action-able advice, in his or her first review would have no real â€Å"handle† with which to approve or | |disapprove the revision; such a reviewer might very well find a revision returning to â€Å"haunt† him or her. | |If my concerns can be addressed successfully in a revision, then I believe the paper should be published. I | |have four major concerns. They are†¦ | |  Ã‚   | |Therefore, I recommend rejection, but would be willing to review a revised version if (1) †¦Ã‚   and (2) †¦Ã‚   | |  Ã‚   | |The following suggestions are provided to improve the weaknesses pointed out above: | |Clearly state the objectives, contributions, and limitations of the study. | |Provide a definition of what you mean by Organizational Support System and use it consistently throughout the | |paper. | |Using this definition, narrow down the literature review. | |1.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Convince the Authors by Arguing from  Their Own Assumptions and Framework | |  Ã‚  Ã‚   | |A reviewer can always take issue with a manuscript’s assumptions and framework. However, disagreeing with the | |assumptions is not always an effective reviewing strategy because, strictly speaking, all assumptions are | |incorrect for what they assume away. An alternative strategy is to accept the manuscript’s assumptions (if only| |for the sake of argument) and then to point out any shortcomings in the manuscript by examining the | |consequences that follow from these assumptions. (Indeed, if the assumptions lead to no objectionable | |consequences, then the assumptions might not be bad assumptions in the first place.    By casting the review in | |terms of the authors’ own framework, the reviewer might then be more likely to convince the authors by courting| |and affirming the authors, rather than by disputing the authors. | |On the first page, the paper says that it will do the following†¦ The rest of the paper, however, does not | |follow through adequately on what it promised to do. In particular, according to the standards of the research | |framework that the authors themselves have chosen, the following things still need to be done or need to be | |done better†¦ Still, there is much potential value in what the paper initially proposed and I encourage the | |authors to flesh out the paper’s ide as more thoroughly. Along these lines, my suggestions are†¦ | |If the reviewer wishes to suggest a different framework and set of assumptions to the authors, this suggestion | |would be more convincing after the reviewer has demonstrated that he or she has given due consideration to the | |authors’ original framework, rather than dismissing it outright. | |1. 5  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Provide Both (1) Your General, Overall Reaction and (2) a List of Specific, Numbered Point-by-Point | |Comments | |  Ã‚   | |As an author, I have received some reviews consisting entirely of numbered, point-by-point comments that give | |the impression that the reviewer was simply typing up his or her review as he or she was reading my manuscript | |linearly, sentence-by-sentence, turning it page-by-page. Whereas such a review might be detailed and even | |exhaustive, I have found that such reviews sometimes negatively criticize me on matters that I actually address| |satisfactorily later in the manuscript. These reviewers do a good job of analyzing the words in my manuscript, | |but they appear to put no effort into discerning what I meant by these words. My impression has been that these| |reviewers considered the reviewing job to be a burden and just wanted to get it over. I have found that if | |there is no statement of an overall reaction from the reviewer, I am sometimes left wondering about what the | |reviewer really means. In fact, in this situation, I sometimes wonder if the reviewer himself knows what he | |means. For these reasons, I believe that a general, overall reaction or overview from the reviewer is needed as| |much as his or her specific, point-by-point comments. | |  However, there is at least one occasion in which a linear, sentence-by-sentence, and page-by-page reading | |might be useful. When I am a reviewer, I will occasionally amend my review by paging through the manuscript | |once more and enumerating, point-by-point, any comments which I had planned to make when I first read the | |manuscript, but which somehow did not make their way into the main body of my review. | |Numbering the major points in a review is helpful to the editor and author. For instance, an editor could then | |conveniently say to the author, â€Å"Pay particular attention to points 2, 3, and 5 by Reviewer 1. † | |1. 6  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  List the Manuscript’s Strengths | |  Ã‚  Ã‚   | |Perhaps the most disheartening review I have ever seen is one that began with the single-sentence paragraph, | |â€Å"There are several problems with this paper,† and followed with a numbered, blow-by-blow listing of all the | |alleged problems in the manuscript. An accompanying listing of the manuscript’s strengths would have made the | |review more palatable (and hence convincing) to the author. |   | |A listing of the manuscript’s strengths takes on added importance when the reviewer’s recommendation is that | |the manuscript should be rejected. Is there really nothing in the manuscript that would make it worthy of a | |revision? Making up a list of the manuscript’s strengths would help make sure that no stone is left u nturned. | |The major asset of this manuscript is that it presents a new approach to†¦This, in turn, raises interesting | |general issues such as: (1)†¦(2)†¦(3)†¦Ã‚   | |  Ã‚   | |Major strengths. |The objective of this paper is of high interest and use to IS managers. | |The authors are exceptionally clear about how this study builds on past studies. | |The methodology, while new to IS, is clearly explained. | |1. 7  Ã‚  Ã‚   Quote, Give the Page Number, or Otherwise Explicitly Locate the Parts of the Manuscript to Which You | |Are Referring | |This will pinpoint what you find difficult to understand, what you disagree with, or exactly what you believe | |needs to be changed. Moreover, if the author should disagree with your assessment, then the author may respond | |precisely to your objection. |In the third paragraph on page 9, it is not clear to me that the authors understand the concept of construct | |validity. | |  Ã‚   | |On page 3, in the literat ure review section, the paper says, â€Å"†¦only 12 percent of the past studies examined the| |same factors we will be examining in this study†¦. † Exactly which studies were these? I do not doubt your | |statement, but I would like to be able to evaluate it for myself. | |  Ã‚   | |On page 2, why does the prior research necessarily suggest that we need to study this topic, as you claim? | |1.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Offer Comments on Tables, Figures, and Diagrams | |  Ã‚  Ã‚   | |Because tables, figures, and diagrams often appear at the end of the manuscript, they often do not receive the | |attention they deserve. However, I believe that reviewing an illustration can be equivalent to reviewing a | |thousand words. Because illustrations are often overlooked in reviews, a detailed comment about an illustration| |might favorably impress the author and editor, suggesting to them that the reviewer is especially | |conscientious. Also, suggesting a new table, figure, or d iagram may encourage the author to sharpen his or her | |argument. | |Table 6 makes no sense to me. The labels along the vertical axis are mentioned nowhere in the text. | |I don’t understand the reason for including Figure 4. What is the relevance of the number of X broken down | |into three categories? | |1. 9  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Be Kind | |  Ã‚  Ã‚   | |There are tactful ways to express negative criticisms. For example, if you are unsure what the contribution of | |the manuscript is, say  Ã¢â‚¬Å"What’s new? †Ã‚  instead of â€Å"So what? †I believe that if the criticism cannot be stated in a| |kind and constructive way, then the criticism might not be worth stating at all. Also, unkind remarks in a | |review that is otherwise valid may create difficulties for the editor who would like to persuade the author | |that the review does have merit. | |1. 10  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Be Frank, in a Tactful Way, about Your Own Emotional Reaction | |  Ã‚   | |Some reviews tend to be dry. As an author and editor, I find that any hint or explicit statement about the | |reviewer’s feelings will help me to interpret what he or she means. | |I had a hard time making a recommendation on this manuscript . . . The paper is nicely written and competent, | |but dull. It is hard to get excited about the findings. | |I am very excited about this paper. At a recent conference a colleague and I were on a panel where we debated | |similar points†¦ | |1. 11  Ã‚  Ã‚   Do Some of Your Own Library Research | |  Ã‚   | |In my experience as an author and editor, I tend to give an extra measure of credibility to reviewers who have | |done some library or other research for their review. This effort makes the review appear sincere and | |convincing. A quotation from a book or article that the reviewer has looked up can be impressive. |On page 14, I was intrigued by the paper’s quotation of Carlson, so I decided to look up Carlson’s article. My | |interpretation of Carlson’s article is. . . | |1. 12  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  If Rejecting the Manuscript, Suggest What Future Research Efforts Might Examine | |  Ã‚  Ã‚   | |Our own behavior as reviewers in the â€Å"double blind† review process reveals our individual values, which may | |include adversarial values and collegial values. Rejecting a manuscript and offer ing only the reasons for | |rejection reveals a person who has no contribution to make to the overall community of scholars. Rejecting a | |manuscript, but also offering suggestions about what the author could pursue instead or pursue differently in | |future research, reveals a person who is integrated into the community of scholars and seeks to foster its | |growth. | |1. 13  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  If Recommending a Revision, Spell Out Alternative Scenarios for How the Revision Could be Done | |  Ã‚   | |Simply saying â€Å"this paper needs a good re-write† is not, by itself, helpful, especially if it is true. Often, | |there is more than one way to revise a manuscript. Suggest two or more scenarios, mention what you believe to | |be the advantages or disadvantages of each one, and leave the choice up to the author. | |1. 4  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Provide Citations or a Bibliography | |  Ã‚   | |A citation that the author finds helpful can be as valuable as a thousand or more words in the rest of the | |review. | |1. 15  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Date Your Review | |  Ã‚   | |As an author and editor, I do not apprecia te late reviews. Once, I noticed that a colleague of min e | |prominently displayed the current date at the top of a review that he was about to send in. He said that the | |date would let the authors of the manuscript know that, if the overall cycle time on their manuscript was | |excessive, he was not the cause. I also suspect that a date on a review can function as an incentive for | |subsequent participants in the review process to act on the manuscript promptly. | |2. Why Review? | |   | |I see four benefits to engaging in the effort of reviewing a manuscript submitted for publication. | |Benefits to the Reviewer in the Short Run  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Typically, a reviewer will receive the reviews by the other | |reviewers and the editor. Doing a review therefore confers an insider’s view of the reviewing process. The | |reactions of the other reviewers and the editor all contain potential lessons for one’s own manuscripts to be | |submitted for publication. In reviewing manuscripts, one also gains access to invaluable bibliographies. | |Access to these bibliographies is sufficient justification, in itself, to find the time to participate in the | |reviewing process. | |Benefits to the Reviewer in the Long Run  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Good reviewers are hard to find. A track record of good reviews | |will enhance one’s reputation with editors, who may then serve (if need be) as job contacts or outside | |reviewers in one’s tenure, promotion, and re-appointment process. In this regard, one’s performance in his or | |her review of a manuscript can be compared to one’s performance in a job interview. Good reviews can benefit | |one’s career. | |Benefits to Others  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Numerous people have helped me launch my career as an university teacher and researcher. | |When they ask me to review a manuscript for which they are the editor or track chair, I regard their request as| |an opportunity for me to return some of the help they have given me. In our research culture, doing a review | |of a manuscript is a socially significant gesture. | |Benefits to One’s Own School of Thought  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  As an author, I often have the experience in which reviewers, | |hostile to and ignorant of the research traditions that I embrace, misreview my submission. Therefore, | |whenever I find that I am a reviewer for a submission that falls in my own school of thought, I expend extra | |efforts to give it a careful, constructive review. Realizing that the refereeing process is political, I will | |do my best to be supportive and affirmingly critical, drawing attention to any major significant points in the | |submission and delineating in explicit, constructive, and â€Å"action-able† ways how the author’s research can be | |improved. As a result, the editor would, if necessary, have some â€Å"ammunition† with which to neutralize any | |hostile and ignorant reviews and thereby to justify a positive editorial decision on this submission. | |3. Conclusion | |No review of a manuscript must incorporate all the features I have described above. I am also confident that | |there are additional useful features I have not yet encountered. I have identified these features based on my | |own experience as a member of the management research community. I encourage my colleagues to do the same. | |Do actual instances of good reviews follow from rules for how to review a manuscript for publication, or do | |rules for ho

The Prohibition Party essays

The Prohibition Party essays When you hear Prohibition you probably think of the 1920s and the eighteenth amendment, which was a failure, but it is most likely that you have never heard of the political party called the Prohibition Party who was behind the prohibition of intoxicating liquors. The Prohibition Party was organized in 1869; their chief aim was, and still is, the abolition of the liquor traffic (Stanwood). On September 1, 1869 five hundred men and women delegates gathered in Farewell Hall Chicago Ill. to form the new political party. The Prohibition Party is the oldest of the third parties. On its first national convention in Columbus Ohio February 22, 1872 only nine states were represented at the convention (www.antisaloon). James Black, a Pennsylvanian, was nominated for president of the political party (Stanwood). In its early years the party was strongest in Ohio and New York, holding the balance of power in the latter in the presidential election of 1884(Britannica). Candidates appeared in every presidential campaign, but they never won an elector. That goes to show that the public doesnt agree with the values of the Prohibition Party. The peak of its popular support was reached in 1892 with 271,000 votes, and the low ebb in 1928 with a total of 20,000(Stanwood). It is only logical that the party would shrink in size and supporters due to the eighteenth amendment not working. In 1896 the money management was questionable and the party temporarily split up. Through its educational activities and its strong appeal to the moral sentiment of the people, the party exerted an influence for a more effective governmental policy toward the liquor problem (www.antisaloon). While its primary object has been the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors, it has also sparked other political, economic and social reforms, many of which have been backed up by the major ...

Free Essays on Heroic Code

Heroic Code in the Iliad and the Odyssey In Webster’s Dictionary, a hero is defined as a person noted for courageous acts or nobility of purpose, especially if this individual has risked or sacrificed his life. In the Iliad and the Odyssey, the code which administers the conduct of the Homeric heroes is a straightforward idea. The aim of every hero is to achieve honor. Throughout the Iliad and the Odyssey, different characters take on the role of a hero. Honor is essential to the Homeric heroes, so much that life would be meaningless without it. Thus, honor is more important than life itself. Throughout the Iliad, heroic characters make decisions based on a specific set of principles, which are referred to as the â€Å"code of honor.† The heroic code that Homer presents to readers is easy to recognize because the heroic code is the cause for many of the events that take place, but many of the characters have different perceptions of how highly the code should be regarded. Hector, the greatest of the Trojan warriors, begins the poem as a model for a hero. His dedication and firm belief in the code of honor is described many times throughout the course of the Iliad. As a reward for heroic traits in battle, prizes were sometimes awarded to victors of war. In Book 1 Achilles receives Chryseis as a prize and a symbol of honor. Heroism had its rewards and its setbacks which ultimately was the backbone of the Illiad in the case of Achilles prize. Hector, arguably the greatest Trojan warrior or even the bravest of the Homeric heroes is very fierce and fights for wh at he believes is his destiny. In book VI Hector expresses his bravery when Andromache pleads with Hector not to fight when Hector says, â€Å"But I would die of shame to face the men of Troy and the Trojan woman trailing their long robes if I would shrink from battle now, a coward. Nor does the sprit urge me on that way. I’ve learned it all too well. To stand up... Free Essays on Heroic Code Free Essays on Heroic Code Heroic Code in the Iliad and the Odyssey In Webster’s Dictionary, a hero is defined as a person noted for courageous acts or nobility of purpose, especially if this individual has risked or sacrificed his life. In the Iliad and the Odyssey, the code which administers the conduct of the Homeric heroes is a straightforward idea. The aim of every hero is to achieve honor. Throughout the Iliad and the Odyssey, different characters take on the role of a hero. Honor is essential to the Homeric heroes, so much that life would be meaningless without it. Thus, honor is more important than life itself. Throughout the Iliad, heroic characters make decisions based on a specific set of principles, which are referred to as the â€Å"code of honor.† The heroic code that Homer presents to readers is easy to recognize because the heroic code is the cause for many of the events that take place, but many of the characters have different perceptions of how highly the code should be regarded. Hector, the greatest of the Trojan warriors, begins the poem as a model for a hero. His dedication and firm belief in the code of honor is described many times throughout the course of the Iliad. As a reward for heroic traits in battle, prizes were sometimes awarded to victors of war. In Book 1 Achilles receives Chryseis as a prize and a symbol of honor. Heroism had its rewards and its setbacks which ultimately was the backbone of the Illiad in the case of Achilles prize. Hector, arguably the greatest Trojan warrior or even the bravest of the Homeric heroes is very fierce and fights for wh at he believes is his destiny. In book VI Hector expresses his bravery when Andromache pleads with Hector not to fight when Hector says, â€Å"But I would die of shame to face the men of Troy and the Trojan woman trailing their long robes if I would shrink from battle now, a coward. Nor does the sprit urge me on that way. I’ve learned it all too well. To stand up...

Chemistry Beverage Lab Report Essays

Chemistry Beverage Lab Report Essays Chemistry Beverage Lab Report Paper Chemistry Beverage Lab Report Paper Drain the rinse solutions into an Erlenmeyer flask, k Dont forget to rezone the balance prior to each new mass measurement. 7. Calculate the density and record the value in Data Table one Part B 8. Use the procedure in part A to determine the density of two beverages. Record all mass and volume data in Data table B and use clean glassware. Between successive beverage measurements rinse the pipette with the second beverage. V _ P re-Lab Questions 1. If the following mass and volume data are used to calculate the density of solution, how many significant figures are allowed in the calculated density? Mass of solution = 12. BOB volume of solution = 8. Ml. -12. 53=4 sigh figs 8. 7=3 sigh figs In the calculated density, three significant figures are allowed 2. Calculate the density of the solution described in Question 12. Sag/8. Ml- 1. Egg,ml Density= 1. Egg/ml The density of the solution in question #1 is 1. 52 g,ml 3. According to its nutrition label, orange soda contains egg of sugar per mall serving. If the density of the beverage is 1. 043 g/ml, what is the percentage sugar concentration in orange soda? * X small(1. Egg/1 ml) = egg, egg/egg The percent sugar concentration in the orange soda is vi. Analysis 2. Use the graph to estimate the unknown sugar concentration in the first average. To do this, locate the point on the y-axis that corresponds to the density value of the beverage. Follow that point on the the y-axis across horizontally to where it meets the %est.-FLT line through this data. Now read down vertically from this point where this vertical line meets the x-axis equals this percent concentration Of sugar in the beverage solution. Construct a Results table and record the density of the beverage and the estimated percent sugar concentration. Powered has the sugar concentration Of 10. 27% 3. Repeat step 2 to determine the percent sugar concentration if the second average. Record all information in your results table. Cola has the sugar concentration of 11. 1% 4. Calculate the actual or accepted value of the sugar concentration in weight percent for each beverage using the nutrition label information and the measured density value. Hint: See Pre. Lab Questions for how to do this calculation. Record both the nutrition label information and the actual percent sugar concentration in your results table. Answer: Cola X g- mall (1. Egg,ml) egg (egg/ egg) x 100% = Colas actual sugar concentration is 11% overhead X mall (1. Egg / mall (15/240) x 100% 6. 25% Parades actual sugar concentration is 6. 25% S. Use the following equation to calculate the percent error in your experimental determination of the sugar content each beverage. Enter the percent error in the results table. Powered % Error = 18. 3-6. 1 / 8. 31* 100% = 22% The percent error for Powered is 22% % Error 11. 1 -11 The percent error for Cola is 0. 9% 6. What was your measured density for pure water (0% sugar solution)? The density of water is usually quoted as 1. 00 g,ml, but this precise value is for C. Comment on why your measured density might be higher or lower than 1. 0 g/ ml. The measured density for pure water got 1. Egg/ ml_, because my water was exactly C. 7. This lab looks at the relationship between the density of a beverage and its sugar content. What assumption is made concerning the other ingredients in the beverage and their effect on the density of the solution? Do you think this is a valid assumption? Explain. Despite this lab looks just at the relationship between the density tot a beverage and its sugar content, other ingredients are also shown in the solution, like sodium. These other ingredients throw off the estimated percentage since they make the solution denser. . When plotting the data such as that obtained in this experiment, why is it not appropriate to connect the dots? It you were to repeat the lab, do you think you would get the exact same result? Comment of the sources of error in this experiment and their likely effect on the results. 1) It is not appropriate to connect the dots when you plot the data such as that in this experiment. It is because the measurements are imperfect. This means that the dots are not in a straight line, but a best fit lie helps approximate reality by using a straight line. 2) The results would not be exact, if were doing the lab again. It probably would e more accurate, since I know the where I made errors. Would also consider about the unconsidered ingredients like sodium to get more accurate result. Is Conclusion Through the Beverage Density Lab, learned that the density of any material is determined by measuring its mass and volume and then dividing the mass by the volume. The mass of a substance can be measured directly using a balance for accuracy. I also learned how unconsidered ingredients, cleaning lab materials are a crucial part of the lab that can affect the results of the experiments. Now I know how to reduce my errors and get a more accurate result.

Astrology Really Works Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Astrology Really Works - Essay Example This correlation does not provide any prove of causality, but for most astrologers, the information available is good enough. Astrology has several things that it is able to perform better than just random guessing. Astrology’s case is that it is amid the many enduring beliefs held as true by human. It joins us with the universe and the entirety of things, offers a fundamental way of describing ourselves and, it applies a variety of techniques (Dean). Practically an affectionate and compassionate astrologer offers a low priced and non threatening treatment that is otherwise difficult to obtain. The astrologer offers emotional condolence, spiritual back up, and entertaining agenda to arouse self-evaluation. New ideas always emerge which could elicit spiritual cognisance. In an inhumane society, an astrologer gives individualized support at particularly low costs, which cannot be offered by any other practitioner, or by random guessing. There exists logical support for the claim that astrology works better than random guessing. This can be better explained by the Magi breakthrough which is comprised of tossing out all the data of birth apart from the date as well as tossing out every chart factor apart from the interplanetary aspects, analogs and contra-analog (Dean). An analog or contra-analog exists when two planets possess similar or opposite declination. Astrologers who advocate that birth moments are essential and that just the entire chart can be used may be compromised. Declination happens to be the new dimension, although it has been applied by several astrologers. The justifications available for this enormous leap are informative. Birth times cannot be used since even the birth certificates with the exact time tend to be wrong. Declinations are the ones which can be used since it is not possible to interpret fully birth charts in their absence. Astrology critics can weaken the claim that it certainly produces dependable information. The critics c laim that astrology is untrue (Dean). They claim that it has not added to human cognition and that it claims the reputation of science but does not employ the scientific methods. They criticize that it has been unsuccessful in many tests, that it does not offer benefits above those generated by factors that are non-astrological and that users usually disagree on fundamentals like those used by zodiac. It is clear through several evidences that astrology is quite accurate in ascertaining an individual’s personality and in overseeing his or her experiences to a given standard. This level of accuracy, however, is determined by the experience of the astrologer involved. There exist theories that provide prove that astrology works. These theories include the solar wind, the cosmic pattern and the spiritual theories that are based on Karma. It is necessary to note that these theories do not collide with each other and instead they are only separate interpretations on the way astrol ogy works. The solar wind is an energy particles stream from the sun’s corona. Those events that occur in the sun do affect the earth, because we are in the earth’s magnetic field.  

Evidence based paper Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Evidence based paper - Essay Example This is an even greater challenge for new nurses who are not yet familiar with the physicians’ handwritings, making them more prone to mistakes. Computers should replace handwritten prescriptions. Doctor’s orders and prescriptions should be given through a computer so that they will be more understandable. This can reduce confusion and mistakes, making the delivery of healthcare faster and more efficient. It can also serve as a better way of keeping track of doctor’s orders since computers make it easier to compile data and save them to a hard drive as opposed to keeping the orders in a clipboard or a folder. Computers can be more beneficial than just reducing mistakes. There are many advantages to using computers in giving orders and prescriptions. Computer-inputted orders and prescriptions are clear and easy to understand; the files can be saved more securely than a physical copy; the files can be shared easily between departments. For example, when a doctor orders a new drug to a patient, once it is noted on the computer, the nurse can forward the new drug orders to the pharmacy so that they can provide the new drug immediately. Documentation becomes easier due to computers, freeing up more time for the nurses to take care of patients. This new speed and efficiency from being able to understand and manage prescriptions better translates into better patient care that can make a difference for the patient’s health and can prevent many accidents involving medication errors from happening. The downside to computers would be cost and reliability. The cost to place a computer and to maintain it in every area of the hospital is significant, and it would also need a powerful backup power supply in case power runs out, which could cripple the whole care process since the computers, with all the patients’ data, cannot be accessed. The ultimate goal of digitizing prescriptions is the

Buddism and Christianity Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Buddism and Christianity - Essay Example The paper compares and contrasts the vision of afterlife in Christianity and Buddhism and considers the morality in these two religions. Buddhism vs Christianity: general overview of the role of afterlife and morality The vision of the world in Buddhism is represented in the following way: the world and the actions of people are connected by causal actions. There are many different gods and their existence is not denied in Buddhism, but they are not the representatives of the basis for morality and they do not give much happiness (Buddhist Afterlife Beliefs, 2007). There is not an afterlife in its pure essence, but the Ultimate Reality, which is a transcendent truth governing the universe and human life. The main Hindu doctrines of reincarnation and karma were accepted by Buddhist practices. A human being should free himself from a desire, to escape the circle of life and death and exist in a kind of a philosophical emptiness. For this phenomenon Nirvana is positioned as a way of lib eration. Moreover, there is no role assigned to the eternal soul. It is more about the eternal and everlasting mind in Buddhism, than about soul. Therefore, death is not a final point for the followers of Buddhism. Therefore, it should be noted that death in Buddhism is an option of further reincarnation or rebirth. Buddha departed from Hinduism and claimed that there are no eternal souls of individuals (Yong, 2006). The main goal is to abandon the false senses and leave nothing to reincarnate and to experience no pain. The departed soul is departing during 49 days and there are three basic stages called â€Å"bardos†. Then a person reaches Nirvana or reaches the Earth for a rebirth (Buddhist Afterlife Beliefs, 2007). The conscious of a departed has a vision of "Clear White Light", when a person dies. Further apparitions occur and in order to achieve Nirvana the personification of human feelings can be seen. Unlike this religion, Christianity has another representation of an individual’s departure. An important role is assigned to God. God sends an individual either to Hell or to Heaven after the Last Judgment. There are different Christian views about afterlife. The concept of afterlife exists around the life of Christ. It concerns his resurrection, death and Resurrection. There is the following interpretation of afterlife: â€Å"At the end of the age, the bodies of the dead shall be raised. The righteous shall enter into full possession of eternal bliss in the presence of God, and the wicked shall be condemned to eternal death† (Christian Beliefs about the Afterlife, 2004). Concerning morality, it is evident that there is a different representation of morality in Christianity and Buddhism. In the former religion, there are evident basic moral pillars and absolutes, which are absent in Buddhism. The latter is more concerned about an individual’s motivation, intentionality of his actions etc. Moreover, Buddhists teachings are focuse d on the absence of necessity to trigger one’s self perfection from outside. It is on behalf of any follower to advance his decision making and the ability to have his own morals and norms of behavior. The different thing happens to Christian practices of morality: there is God, who is a center of morality perfection and the followers should comply with the God’s instructions in order to purify their souls. A centrality of moral concerns is relevant to Christianity, at the same time, while Buddhism

Crime 3396 Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Crime 3396 - Assignment Example People are becoming vigilant in protecting themselves against the adversities of e-crime. The first thing is to educate them about the basic requirements of online safety. Second, I will advice them to set up basic protection against malicious software such as viruses and spyware in their computers. If they use computers for transactions, I will help them to install security features to ensure safety of their transactions and information. The consequences of e-crime include financial losses, computer destructions, business interruptions, theft of valuable and confidential data, and exposing children to objectionable sites such as pornography. The e-crime units investigate and provide legal and prosecutorial support for technology-based crimes. The units also develops and implement training programs for judges, law enforcement officers, the public and prosecutors on the necessity of strong information security and being aware of rising e-crimes. Yes, I studied extensively about e-crime during my undergraduate degree. I would suggest that curriculum developers to consider developing computer-based courses that particularly expose children to aspects of e-crime across all academic

A Midsummer Night's Dream Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

A Midsummer Night's Dream - Research Paper Example According to Stephen Greenblatt, â€Å"This is a world in which outward appearance is everything and nothing, in which individuation is at once sharply etched and continually blurred, in which the victims of fate are haunted by the ghosts of the possible, in which everything is simultaneously as it must be and as it need not have been† (60). Many of these often confusing issues became the subjects of the major literature produced during this era such as in William Shakespeare’s play A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Although the exact date of when Shakespeare wrote this play is unknown, with most estimates suggesting it was perhaps around 1595 or 1596, the confusion between tradition and contemporary times is highlighted within this play through Shakespeare's deliberate use of a play within the play. One of the most effective means of reinforcing the major concepts of a story’s plot or of highlighting individual character traits is to include some form of repetit ion within the text. Shakespeare was a master at this kind of repetition as is seen in many of his plays including Hamlet and Midsummer Night's Dream. However, he uses these forms of repetition for entirely different purposes. In Hamlet, the play within the play is used to both show the audience actions that took place prior to the play's opening as well as to expose the guilty conscience of the king and thus prove to Hamlet that vengeance is justified. In Midsummer Night's Dream, though, the play is used to link tradition to present day in such a way as to demonstrate that despite the perception that times are changing drastically, unsettling many in their comfortable traditional views, human activity and emotion really hasn't changed all that much. To accomplish this seemingly impossible feat, Shakespeare incorporates an entire mini-play within the greater work. This mini-play appears in Act 5 and its action functions to almost duplicate the principle characters and actions found within the larger work. Not only does it reiterate some of the key points of the major work, but this mini-play also functioned to directly address an element of the audience that might otherwise have felt omitted. In Shakespeare's time, everyone attended the plays as a major form of entertainment, but the uneducated lower elements of society didn't always fully understand the high comedy offered by the playwright. By providing this mini-play, even these elements of the audience were able to enjoy the play and understand its message. Thus it is possible to examine this mini-play in order to gain greater appreciation and understanding of the larger play. Within its simple one-scene setting, this mini-play serves to expose the exaggerated romanticism of the lovers, the timeless struggle of young people attempting to marry for love despite the wishes of their parents and the sometimes disastrous problems that can only occur in the confusing darkness of night. Although many of Shakespea re’s plays can be traced to earlier stories as a means of linking them with tradition, this particular play has fewer historical connections. According to Mabillard, Geoffrey Chaucer’s story of the Knight’s Tale in his Canterbury Tales is one probable source for the play - both the master play and the mini-play. The Knight's Tale is told from the