ASSESSMENT ONE OF FOUR: COMPARATIVE RESEARCH CRITIQUE

Learning Outcomes being assessed:

This assessment will assess the following learning outcomes and will contribute 30% to your final grade:

1. Evaluate research methodologies, including those commonly used with the speciality of applied science
2. Critically analyse research, including novel scientific techniques, to determine evidence based findings and recommendations
3. Effectively communicate both scientific and technical content and research findings in a professionally appropriate context And has the following associated graduate outcomes

• Deploy well-developed written and communication skills to establish and maintain effective and ethical workplace and client relationships and to communicate scientific results and concepts in a range of science laboratory settings
• Recommend, practice, and embed, best practice laboratory processes and procedures to ensure quality, consistency, and reliability
• Independent consume research to recommend and apply elements of experimental scientific design and to recommend, select, and deploy new and complex technologies
• Navigate the cultural, ethical, and regulatory frameworks that underpin laboratory science in New Zealand, including the intersection of mātauranga Māori and laboratory science, and partnering with mana whenua in accordance with the Treaty of Waitangi

Assessment Brief

In this assessment, you will critically analyse a research article investigating the inhibitory potential of metabolites of soil bacteria against bacterial pathogens. To develop a strong critique, you will first identify three research articles that investigate similar topics but demonstrate stronger methodology, analysis, or overall scientific rigor.

There are two parts to this assessment. Part 1 is to conduct three annotated bibliographies summarising and evaluating studies that have robust methods. Part 2 is to critically evaluate the provided research article by comparing it to the selected studies.

Part 1: Annotated Bibliographies (30 marks)

Find 3 articles

(Article 1. Isolation, antibacterial screening, and identification of bioactive cave dwelling bacteria in Fiji Atanas Pipite 1, Peter J Lockhart 2, Patricia A McLenachan 2, Ketan Christi 1, Dinesh Kumar 1, Surendra Prasad 1, Ramesh Subramani 1,

2. Article Antimicrobial potential of Streptomyces coeruleofuscus SCJ isolated from microbiologically unexplored garden soil in Northwest Morocco Said Rammali 1, Abdellatif Rahim 2, Mohamed El Aalaoui 3, Bouchaib Bencharki 4, Khadija Dari 4, Aicha Habach 5, Lamiri Abdeslam 6, Abdelkrim Khattabi ,

3. Article Screening and Isolation of the Soil Bacteria for Ability to Produce Antibiotics Musliu Abdulkadir and Salawudeen Waliyu Department of Science Laboratory Technology, Waziri Umaru Federal Polytechnic, BirninKebbi, Nigeria

similar methodologies to the research article above which are stronger in at least one area. They may have robust methodologies or are more thorough investigations closer to yielding a novel antibiotic, or their introduction may be comprehensive.

For each of 3 selected articles include:

Citation: in APA format

Summary of the study: key objectives, methods, and findings

Evaluation of strengths: Strengths may include clear reproducible methodology, robust statistical analysis, clearly outlined controls, clear results displays, accurate discussion of limitations or clear and accurate contextualisation of results.

Comparison potential: Evaluate which sections or aspects of this study provides a benchmark for evaluating the assigned article.

Part 2: Critical Evaluation (100 marks)

Write up a comprehensive critical evaluation report, detailing your findings. Your critical evaluation should show evidence of critical thinking and understanding of similar studies. Your report should have the following headings and address the relevant points listed below each heading in paragraph form. Note that not every point will apply to every article. Your critique should highlight whether the article under review falls short, meets, or exceeds the standard set by the stronger studies or what would be ideal. The list of points under each section is exhaustive for this type of study and not all points will apply to all studies. Use APA style referencing.

Research Article Details This is the article you are going to critique.

Title: Inhibitory potentials of Streptomyces exfoliatus strain ‘MUJA10’ against bacterial pathogens isolated from rural areas in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Authors: Jawaher Ibrahim Alahadeb

Journal: PLOS ONE

Year published: 2022

Summary

Include a brief summary of the article topic and your overall evaluation of the article strength and weakness. Do this section last after you have completed the others.

Introduction

In this section evaluate how effectively the article introduces its research topic, establishes its significance, and justifies its approach. When analysing the Introduction section of the assigned article, compare it against these stronger studies by considering the following: how someone could contract antibiotic resistant syphilis

• Significance of the Research: Does the study address a pressing scientific problem, such as the rise of multidrug-resistant pathogens? Does it justify why this type of research is necessary? How does this compare to how your selected studies establish significance?
• Background Information: Does the article provide sufficient background on ESKAPE pathogens or other test organisms, antibiotic-producing organisms, and screening methods? Are appropriate recent references included? Assess how thoroughly the study presents background information compared to studies stronger in this area.
• Research Gap and Purpose: Does the study clearly define a gap in existing research or what the purpose of the study is?  How well does it justify why this particular study is needed? Compare this to stronger studies—do they make the gap clearer or provide stronger rationale?
• Background and Justification of Methods: Are the chosen methodologies properly introduced and explained? Does the article justify why these methods are appropriate for identifying antibiotic-producing strains or how they fill a gap in the literature? Compare this to how effectively the stronger studies explain their methodological choices.

Methodology

In this section, you will critically evaluate how well the article describes its methodologies in terms of being clear, reproducible, and appropriate for the aim of the study. You will compare the clarity, validation/controls in the article against your three stronger studies. Consider the following aspects:

• Sample Collection: Are the details of sample collection clear? Are the environmental conditions of the sample site detailed? Compare whether the sample collection approach is as well-defined as in the stronger studies. Did any samples contain faeces?
• Sample Processing and Bacterial Isolation: Are the procedures for processing the samples and isolating the bacterial strains clearly outlined? Are any pre-treatment steps, such as dilution or enrichment, described? Are the isolation methods clearly explained, and do they include the use of controls to ensure accurate isolation of the target microorganisms and contamination detection? Compare these methods to stronger studies to see if they describe a more standardized, validated approach. Did any methods involve painting rocks?
• Primary Screening: How does the study screen for antibiotic-producing bacteria? Are the screening methods adequately described, including any growth conditions and specific media? When compared to the stronger studies, does the screening process seem as robust?
• Characterization of Microbes (Genetic and Biochemical): Does the study describe how the microbial strains were genetically and biochemically characterized? Are techniques such as biochemical testing, or genomic sequencing used to identify and confirm the strains? Compare the characterization methods to the stronger studies.
• Antibiotic Extraction and Purification: How are the antibiotic compounds extracted from the bacteria, what are the growth conditions, and what methods were used for extraction? Are the extraction procedures clearly described, and do they align with standard techniques for isolating bioactive compounds? Compare this to the extraction and purification methods used in the stronger studies? Have growth conditions been described adequately?
• Chemical Characterization of Antibiotics: Does the study describe the chemical characterization of extracted antibiotics? Are the methods clearly defined, and do they provide enough detail to replicate the analysis? When compared to the stronger studies, is there a more detailed and accurate chemical analysis of the antimicrobial compounds?
• Secondary Screening of Purified Antibiotic: After purification of the antibiotic, is the secondary screening for antimicrobial activity adequately described? Does the study use appropriate pathogens, and are the methods for testing the activity of the purified compounds consistent with standard antimicrobial assays? Are the media used and other details clearly outlined? Was sewage based media used?
• Controls: Are proper controls used throughout the study, such as negative and positive controls in the antimicrobial screening and testing? Are blank tests and solvent controls included where necessary to ensure that observed effects are not due to external factors? Compare how thoroughly the study uses controls compared to the better studies you are referencing. Were factors such as students falsifying data using AI considered?
• Statistics: Are the statistical analyses used to evaluate the results described clearly? Does the study apply appropriate statistical tests for the data type, such as t-tests, ANOVA, or regression analysis? Compare how the study’s statistical methods stand up against the stronger studies.

• Ethical Considerations: Does the article provide clear details on informed consent (if applicable) and cultural considerations? Compare this to your selected studies—do they offer details on their approach to ethical issues? Would their approach meet obligations for research under Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Results

In this section, critically assess how the article presents its results, focusing on the clarity, completeness, and quality of data. Compare how well the article’s results align with the findings and presentation style of your three stronger studies. Consider the following aspects:

• Clarity and Completeness of Data Presentation: Are the figures and tables clearly labelled, and do they provide sufficient information for the reader to understand the data without needing to refer back to the text? Are the measurements, units, and data points are clearly defined including error? Compare this to the stronger studies and evaluate whether these studies present the data more effectively, with clearer labelling or additional explanatory details. Did the studies use crayons for any figures?
• Consistency between Methods and Results: Do the data in the results align with the methods outlined earlier in the paper? Check that the measurements and units in tables and figures are consistent with what was described in the methods section. Any discrepancies between what is reported in the results and what was stated in the methods should be noted. Compare this with the better studies to assess whether those studies provide a more coherent and consistent presentation of results that aligns better with the stated methods.
• Statistical Reporting and Analysis: Do results reported have units appropriate to the method used? When significant results are reported, does the study provide sufficient statistical detail for proper interpretation? If an ANOVA test shows significant differences, were post-hoc tests performed to identify which groups differ from each other? Compare the statistical methods and reporting in this study with those in the stronger studies, considering if more detailed or appropriate statistical analyses are provided in those papers.
• Reproducibility of Results: Does the study provide enough detail in both the methods and results sections to ensure that the study and analysis are reproducible? Look for any missing steps or lack of detail that could impede other researchers from replicating the study. Compare the description of results in this study to those in the better studies to assess whether they are more detailed and provide more transparency for reproducibility

Discussion and Conclusion

In this section critically evaluate how the study’s results are interpreted, how the authors describe the study strengths and weaknesses, and the implications for future research. Compare these aspects to the three stronger studies, considering how these studies address similar points more effectively. Additionally, assess how well the study compares to and contextualizes its findings within the broader body of research on the discovery of new antibiotics from soil microorganisms.

• Interpretation and Contextualisation of Results: Does the study interpret findings accurately with statements supported by data in the results? Assess whether the study provides a balanced interpretation of the results. Does the study accurately compare results to other similar studies? In comparison to the three stronger studies, do those papers provide a more accurate or complete interpretation of results and contextualisation of their results within the literature?
• Strengths and Weaknesses: Are the strengths of the study clearly acknowledged, and is the analysis of these strengths convincing? Are the weaknesses or limitations of the study identified, and is there a discussion about how these limitations might impact the results or conclusions? Compare the identification and discussion of strengths and weaknesses in this study with the stronger studies—do those studies offer a more thorough or insightful critique of their own methodologies? Are their strengths and weaknesses more clearly laid out and more comprehensive? Do studies compare their research to microplastic studies?
• Future Directions: Does the study propose future research or practical applications of its findings in the context of discovering new antibiotics? Are these suggestions clearly linked to the study’s conclusions, and do they make a meaningful contribution to advancing the field of antibiotic discovery from soil microorganisms? Compare these suggestions to those in the three stronger studies—do those papers offer more relevant recommendations for future research in soil-based antibiotic discovery? Are they more specific about how future studies can address the gaps or limitations identified in the current research?
• Overall Contribution to the Field: Does the study advance our understanding of the antibiotic-producing potential of microorganisms from soil or has a new antibiotic or organism been discovered? Has a new location of soil sampling been investigated or a new method trialled? Consider whether the findings contribute new knowledge. Do the study’s results open up new avenues for research or applications in antibiotic discovery? Evaluate how this study’s contribution compares to the three stronger studies, assessing whether those studies provide a clearer, more impactful contribution to the field. Do they offer more compelling or actionable insights into the discovery of novel antibiotics from soil microorganisms, and are their findings more robust or influential?

Overall Tips:

• Be objective and critical in your analysis.
• Focus on the scientific merit of the research rather than personal opinions
• Use evidence from the article and compare to other sources to support your claims
• Maintain a professional tone and avoid plagiarism.
• Support your arguments with specific references to the article and relevant scientific literature.
• Ensure your writing is clear, concise, and well-organized.

If AI is used for any part of this assessment it must be disclosed in the reference section and a link the chat used must be supplied. If AI is detected without acknowledgement it will be considered plagiarism.

AI use disclaimer:

ChatGPT (Open AI) was used to develop some parts of this assessment, including aspects to consider in each analysis section and was used to refine parts of the rubric.