Seminar-seminar on the evaluation network (…) for a scientific article


Item Type:

1. Research paper : its purpose is to report scientific progress in a particular field of study. Therefore, it aims for originality.

2. Review the article : Performs evaluation of research and knowledge already obtained. However, it may suggest new avenues of research. It stands out for its long and varied bibliography. Indeed, this is state-of-the-art.

3. Research Note : associated with a more experimental field. It is mainly focused on the specialization arising from scientific experience. He is very short.

4. Letter to the editor : especially in medicine and human sciences, it allows to express viewpoints and positions questioning some recently published facts, to discuss the thesis, to debate and to dispute certain ideas (Professor Raoul’s case of COVID 19)

5. A systematic review : answers the question. Analyzes and synthesizes a range of scientific data. Therefore, it provides an overview of the results of several scientific studies that answer the same question. It has two main phases: the question and protocol phase and the synthesis and discussion phase about the results.

6. Meta-analysis: similar to a systematic review. However, it differs in its statistical analysis, which combines data from numerous articles and publications.

7. Clinical case : is a type of article that is mainly based on observation. It conveys an account of an observed fact or phenomenon in the subjects to be studied (medical and human sciences).

Types of thinking

1. Reasoning by analogy : based on comparison

2. Inductive reasoning : goes from specific to general. consists of

generalize from a series of spontaneous or prompted observations.

3. Deductive reasoning : goes from general to specific. Propositions are determined not by direct observation of facts, but by reference to already established propositions.

4. Hypothetico-deductive reasoning : characterizes research in experimental sciences and humanities. It allows testing a hypothesis by comparing the results (expected results) of an experiment or observation.

5. Absurd Argument (or Apogogy) : demonstrates that a statement is true by showing that its opposite is false.

6. Reasoning by contradiction : Examples: rainbow requires sunlight; contrapositive, if there is no sunshine, there can be no rainbow. There is no smoke without fire. Poppy flowers are equal to red, there cannot be a poppy flower that is not red.

7. The opposite reasoning : often used by lawyers. It consists of starting from the initial reasoning (assumptions – conclusions) and confirming with the same reasoning in the form that the opposite hypothesis leads to opposite conclusions. Example: dogs must be kept on a leash at the beach. Counter-argument: tigers aren’t dogs, so they don’t need to be kept on a leash at the beach.

8. A fortiori reasoning : In response, the plaintiff’s lawyer will use the a fortiori rationale, which is that he can do more, he can do less. A fortiori or a fortiori reasoning is reasoning that deduces a truth from another truth already accepted by stronger similar arguments that legitimize the first. Example: if off-leash dogs (situation A) are not allowed (offer accepted), a fortiori tigers are not kept on a lead (situation B).

9. Inductive reasoning : for the information to reach us correctly, the source must be correct (work Wikipedia), this is initialization, and transmission from person to person is also true, heredity (reliability of information obtained through interviews, interviews and surveys)

10. Concessional reasoning : consists of partially accepting the arguments of the opposing thesis and countering them with other arguments. The most familiar structure: thesis, antithesis and synthesis.


1. The structure of the result:

a brief summary of the introduction (research question, scientific hypotheses and context of the study);

- description of main results and their interpretation;

- relate these results to the problem;

- research implications and implications for research;

- openings and proposal (perspectives) for in-depth research.

2. Mistakes to avoid:

- excessive development;

- add new information;

- citing other work: completing research on the work of other researchers may reduce the impact of the presented research;

- do not forget to remember the premise: the conclusion must be consistent with the premise it remembers and responds to;

- express doubts or hesitations about the research presented. Expressions such as “maybe”, “eventually”, “this may happen” should be banned. The author must be very positive, otherwise it is better to rework the discussion.

Main text:

1. Style:

- clearness, brevity, precision, consistency, coherence, precision

2. Structuring:

- the paragraph should contain only the main idea supported by explanations, comments, statistics or examples;

- speech should be formal and continuous;

- grammar level must be very satisfactory;

- the enumeration must follow one of the following representations: ascending, descending, or neutral;

- avoid definitions, circular (economics is the study of economics), restrictive (the table is where we eat), generic (lemonade is a soft drink);

- transitional sentences or paragraphs are required to move from one idea to another;

- quotes should always be followed by a comment. Never end a section (chapter, section, or subsection) with a quote.

- use punctuation marks well

- all parts (chapter, section and subsection) should have introduction and conclusion;

- all entries (chapter, section and subsection) must end with an outline.

Login :

Participants are free to develop their own criteria.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *