Summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the discussion ...



Summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the discussion section of “Micropatterned surfaces modified with select peptides promote exclusive interactions with osteoblasts”:

Strengths:

1. Discussion section successfully integrated the results of current research into the authors’ own original research. Authors showed how their own research confirmed previous findings of other researchers, especially with regard to the special types of peptides used and the circle sizes chosen for micropatterning e.g. Dee et al. and Chen et al. Pertinent sections are highlighted in pink.

2. The start of the discussion section further restates and elaborates on the reasons (listed in the introduction section) that provided the impetus for the research described in the paper, thus further strengthening proposed practical value of their paper. Pertinent sections are highlighted in blue.

3. Provided a suitable conclusion to the entire research conducted by listing its practical values and without overstating the results of the research.

Weaknesses:

1. Authors did not suggest ways of modifying experiments for future studies and hence, one is unable to extrapolate potential research from the results.

2. There was insufficient interpretation of the results obtained. The authors provided simple, straightforward interpretations of the results e.g. less fibroblasts bound to KRSR implies that KRSR selects against fibroblasts, but failed to further interpret these results i.e. why such a phenomenon was observed and how to modify the experiment to increase/decrease this effect etc.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download