PhD Curriculum
Session: Journal Club
Roles and structures to make them effective
Skills and competencies
critical thinking, critique and interpret scientific literature, organise a journal club, peer support
Duration and scheduling
85-minute session
Video
Outline
In a small group (at least three members), students take turns to play a different role at each meeting of the club: chair, presenter and discussant. A facilitator observes the structured discussion and, only at the end, offers brief comments.
Objectives
- To become familiar with how to participate in and organise a journal club
- To develop the ability to read critically and discuss a paper
- To learn how to present a ten-minute overview of a journal article
- To acquire skills in peer review and discussion
Selecting articles
Give careful thought to the articles you choose for the journal club. An article is unlikely to meet every criterion, but look for those that meet at least one of these following objectives. The article:
- Illustrates that excellent research can and does come from African researchers in Africa
- Demonstrates very good writing
- Illustrates how to write up quantitative research well
- Illustrates how to write up qualitative research well
- Is an example of a good mixed-methods paper
- Is really bad and made errors that can be discussed (methodological errors, unethical practices, etc)
- Demonstrates an issue that is relevant to African research leadership
- Demonstrates a useful approach in action – for instance a good case-control study, a good implementation-science study or how a project dealt with gender issues
The point is that you can use the journal article to achieve more than one goal. How to run a journal club is a useful exercise in itself, but in addition the form and/or content should also be useful for the students.
Preparation
Facilitators
Identify and distribute articles for discussion, to include accessible pieces such as blogs and magazine articles as well as academic papers
Allocate roles (chair, presenter and discussant) for each meeting, ensuring that each participant has a turn to play each role
Presenter
Reads the article thoroughly
Seeks help for anything they do not understand
Outlines what the article says, noting:
- What is the background to the topic of the paper?
- Why does the topic matter?
- Who are the authors and where do they come from?
- How was the study funded?
- What was the research question or objective of the study?
- What methods were used?
- What in summary were the key results?
- What did the author/s conclude?
Discussant
Reads the article thoroughly
Seeks help for anything they do not understand Outlines their critique of the article, noting:
- Are the objectives of the study clear?
- Are the methods clearly described?
- Does the results section give you all the information you need to understand the data?
- Do you agree with the conclusions the authors draw from the data?
All participating students
Read the article/s, noting:
- Are the objectives of the study clear?
- Are the methods clearly described?
- Does the results section give you all the information you need to understand the data?
- Do you agree with the conclusions the authors draw from the data?
Steps
The chair, presenter and discussant arrive early to arrange the room for a group discussion
The chair opens the session, keeps time, ensures participation by everyone, facilitates discussion by posing questions or summarising points, closes the session and thanks the presenter, discussant, participants and facilitator
The presenter has ten minutes, without PowerPoint slides, to outline what the article says
The discussant has ten minutes, without PowerPoint slides, to critique the article, stimulating discussion by highlighting concerns and uncertainties about the article
After 45 minutes of discussion, the facilitator can intervene, if necessary, to comment on:
- If the discussion is in fact focused on the merits/ content/ interpretation of the article
- If key points are being missed
At the end of the session, the facilitator has five minutes for brief feedback, as constructive as possible, noting potential for improvement and possibly drawing on this checklist:
- Room layout allowed eye contact for everyone
- Journal club started and finished on time
- Presenter kept to time
- Presenter gave a clear and accurate description of the paper
- Presenter provided appropriate background information
- Discussant kept to time
- Discussant drew out points of concern and/or uncertainty that stimulated discussion
- Discussant understood what points to critique
- Everyone in the room contributed to the discussion
- Chair was able to stimulate discussion (if necessary)
Outcomes
After a series of journal-club meetings, students should be able to:
- Participate in and organize a journal club
- Critically read and discuss a paper
- Present a ten-minute overview of a journal article
- Offer peer review and discussion
Assessment
The facilitator grades participants from 1–10.
- 8–10 Excellent
Chair: ensured optimal room layout, began and ended session on time, ensured speakers kept to time, actively solicited participation from all group members, summarized discussion thoroughly
Presenter: contextualized the paper well, discussed authors of paper, gave cogent summary of methods, highlighted important results, summarized conclusions comprehensively
Discussant: provided a thorough critique of the methods, explored whether conclusions were justified, thoroughly discussed implications of results and conclusions, explored potential conflicts of interest, identified 2–4 points for group to discuss - 4–7 Average
Chair: arranged reasonable room layout but could be improved, kept time in most instances, made some attempt to stimulate discussion, summarized one or two of the main points
Presenter: provided some background for the paper, but omitted important elements, gave cogent summary of methods but omitted important aspects, reported results without highlighting key information for wider group, summarized only some conclusions
Discussant: provided a reasonable critique of the methods used, gave somewhat superficial
Account of implications of results and conclusions, identified only one point for group discussion - 1–3 Below Standard
Chair: made no attempt to reorganize the room despite non-conducive layout, started and ended session late, made no attempt made to restrict presenters to allotted time nor to stimulate discussion, deferred to facilitator, failed to summarize discussion
Presenter: did not contextualize the paper, read methods as written rather than summarizing, read results verbatim, failed to report author conclusions, summarized only some conclusions
Discussant: did not critique methods, failed to discuss wider implications of results and conclusions, failed to identify points for group discussion
Contact US
P.O. Box 10787 – 00100 Nairobi, Kenya
cartaenquiries@aphrc.org
+254 (20) 400 1000, 266 2244, 266 2255