What is a literature review?

1. What is a literature review? An essay to describe critically all the published research in a particular field up to the present time. Why do we write a literature review? XXX - so that students will have something to do X - so that students will know existing research in the area - so that the results of research can be compared with others’ work - so that the direction of research can be more productive

2. How do I go about writing a literature review? Discuss with project supervisor What does he/she want you to review? Can he/she give a lead reference? Too many, too few Topic is too specific/ Topic is too unspecific Look for articles – Pubmed, Google Read articles to get the main points Internalise the contents – summarise if necessary The AD barrier Reflect critically on the results How does your FYP fit into the gaps? Tell the history of the research up to now Preferably in a logical sequence (not chronological sequence)

3. When should we do a literature review? XXX • - At the beginning of my FYP • At the beginning and of my FYP • Throughout my FYP X How many journal papers should be reviewed in a literature review? XXX • Only recent revelant papers in the last 5 years • Only the most recent 5 relevant papers • All relevant papers XXX

4. How do I know which papers are relevant? XXX • all papers with the keyword in pubmed • all papers which my supervisor gives me • no fixed answer, can only tell by reading the paper XXX Which other sources other than journal papers are considered “published research”? XXX • website • conference proceedings • books • review articles XX Generally no because conference proceedings are not peer-reviewed X X Generally – you should use research articles because these are primary sources Use reviews and books as starting points

5. Common pitfalls of literature reviews (in order of importance) • Plagiarism • Review is just a series of summaries of articles – no link • No attempt made to harmonise data/terminology • Citation format not consistent • Unnecessary information • Not comprehensive enough • Not critical enough Class Exercise

6. Plagiarism is pretending that certain ideas or results are your own. Unintentional plagiarism – is still plagiarism and shows a lazy mind e.g. forgetting to cite references e.g. imitating words and phrases • Is it serious? • In the literature review section – if you cut-and-paste facts – perhaps • slightly more excusable (bec of the context) • If you cut-and-paste opinions – BAD !! – because you are passing other people’s opinions as your own.

7. Original Article text: from Zul et al 2010 “Zanamavir has a very short retention time as, at the alkaline pH of the mobile phase, it (Fig 1) is likely to be deprotonated" Student A: At high pH levels, zanamavir probably loses a proton and hence has a very short retention time. Possible plagiarism – because although the exact words are not used (and hence will not be caught by SafeAssign) but the ideas are a faithful copy of the original text – the words are just substituted in a one-to-one fashion Student B: At high pH, zanamavir, like all alcohols, is likely to be deprotonated and hence has a very short retention time as a charged ion will have little affinity for the non-polar stationary phase. Not plagiarism – because although the exact words are used (and hence will be picked up by SafeAssign) but the student shows that he/she has come up with this sentence through his/her application of facts which are ‘widely known’. i.e. ‘like all alcohols’ and ‘little affinity….”

8. Original Article text: from Zul et al 2010 “Zanamavir has a very short retention time as, at the alkaline pH of the mobile phase, it (Fig 1) is likely to be deprotonated" Student C: At alkaline pH, zanamavir is likely to be deprotonated hence has a very short retention time.[Zulet al, 2010] Possible plagiarism – in the eyes of many people this would be plagiarism because it is a direct copy even if acknowledged. Even for those who do not consider this serious plagiarism – student C would score low marks because shows no orginality, laziness and possibly little understanding.

9. Original Article text: from Zul et al 2010 “Zanamavir has a very short retention time as, at the alkaline pH of the mobile phase, it (Fig 1) is likely to be deprotonated" Student D: “Zanamavir has a very short retention time At high pH, zanamavir is likely to be deprotonated” [Zuletal 2010] Same as C– this is the correct way to cite but…. Student D would score low marks because shows no originality of thought, laziness and possibly little understanding. Student E Zanamavir cannot be separated well if an alkaline mobile phase is used. [Zul et al 2010] Not plagiarism – and shows that the student understands the main Implication of the original text and has expressed it not only in his/her own words (even though some words are re-used) but re-cast it in his own ideas. The extra fact (in this case) about deprotonation is not mentioned bec he/she does not feel it relevant to his/her review.

10. 2. Review is just a series of summaries of articles – no link Clonal propagation of orchids (in vitro) There are two major groups of orchids namely sympodials and monopodials, which can be clonally propagated. Sympodials has multi-branching rhizome characteristic that can supply an abundance of axillary shoots for use as explants. Monopodials has a single un-branched axis that has only a few axillary shoots for use as explants. Different morphologies hence require different approaches to explants selection and culturing. Meristem culture began in 1960, and one method is to initiate explant and cultivating it into an undifferentiated callus or protocorm-like body (PLB). PLBs are tissues masses that are in the early stage of orchid embryo development. When undergo proliferation, PLBs can differentiate into plantlets. Another method reduces the role of callus, stimulating the culture to differentiate into plantlets early in the process. Proliferation is achieved by axillary branching of shoots derived from the original explants. Kueh et al (1974) reported …….. ….. Chai et al (1982) found that ……. …. Goh et al (1988) reported that Literature review should not be a disjointed series of summaries of papers It should tell a story There should be a link between paragraphs

11. 3. No attempt made to harmonise data/terminology e.g. Same but different units: mM, mol dm-3, mol L, % w/v, ppm or O.D. vs A.U. Short form in one para and long form in another e.g. PBS vs phosphate-buffered saline Slightly different terminology: carbapenemase, beta-lactamase, penicillinase Failure to harmonise shows no digestion of material Also strongly suggests plagiarism

12. An example: There was a decrease in the Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) levels, from an average influent level of 13 579 ppm to average effluent level of 2036 ppm. The reduction in COD represents an 85% purification level, comparing to previous years, 75%, with the aid of the oxygen injection system. [A] In paper B, the activated sludge membrane bioreactor, MBR has been proven to have some advantage for processing and reclamation of domestic water. They have come up with a theory that some microbes can improve the efficiency of the system. These microbes will be selected based on their abilities to decompose chemical components of raw sewage. The result, with eMBR, the average values of effluent quality were, chemical oxygen demand (COD), 40 mg/l (average efficiency of removal 90.0%); and NH4 + –N, 0.66 mg/l(average efficiency of removal 99.4%). From this experiment, they found out that the effluent qualities met the standard. Besides that, the effluent qualities were steady throughout the study. COD removal rate was 91.7% (activated sludge MBR) and the NH4 +–N removal (94.8%) was less than the eMBR. Start-up time for the eMBR was only 24 to 48 hours. This time is much shorter than the 7 to 8 days required to kick off function of the standard MBR.

13. Traces history and recent developments General Piece of Advice: Look at “Introduction” sections of research papers as a guide. Notice review looks at the big picture Note the flow of the language - even though 7 different articles are reviewed. Note how the researchers’ work is related to previous work is hinted here (IMPORTANT!)

14. General Piece of Advice: Look at “Introduction” sections of research papers as a guide. Note the flow of the language - even though different articles are reviewed. Notice review looks at the big picture Traces history and recent developments How the researchers’ work is related to previous work is hinted here.

15. 4. Citation format not consistent • See “Guidelines on referencing” in MeL under Course Documents>Literature Review • Software for referencing

16. Authors, Year. Title. Journal, Volume, pages

17. Common errors • References cited in the text are not found in the References Section • References found in the References Section are not referred to in the text • References are not complete • Missing authors names, year of publication, title, journal, volume

18. Common Errors • Inconsistent referencing • Mixture of abbreviations and full citations • Use the Harvard style of referencing as given in your handout • References in text of review should be in sequence • Cheating • Abstracts only are read but the full reference is indicated as read • Citations are taken from scientific papers but not read MORE CITATIONS  MORE MARKS OR MORE LEARNING

19. Unnecessary information • Not comprehensive enough • 7. Not critical enough Particularly common for BMS students – too much ‘medical’ background which is irrelevant to FYP – also introduces terminology which authors may not know the meaning of Klebsiella pneumoniae is a Gram-negative, rod-shaped bacterium in the Enterobacteriaceae family (Ho et al, 2011). It is commonly found in the environment, and on mucosal surfaces in mammals, such as the nasopharynx (Podschun and Ullmann, 1998). It is also part of the microflora in the human gastrointestinal tract (Wu et al, 2008). In addition, it is an opportunistic pathogen that can cause wound infections, urinary tract infections (UTI) and pneumonia (Pan et al, 2011). The infections it has caused are both nosocomial and community-acquired (Yu et al, 2006), Ideally, a literature review should compare and evaluate the existing research Critical  criticising… however for 3rd year poly students….

20. FYP Topic: Chemical analysis of the waters of Singapore Article 1 – S. Zaman & Rio E. , Journal of LSCT, 2012, 1, 20-29 “…The concentration of chloride ions in Sungei Pandan was determined by titration with AgCl to be 0.01 mol/L while the level of nitrates was found to be 0.3 mol/L using a commercial kit for aquaria (Nutrafin)…… Article 2 – D. R. Sujit & Teo K. T., LSCT Confessions, 2013, 2, 13-20 “…samples extracted from Sungei Buloh were collected acid-washed plastic bottles and stored at 4 C before analysis. The samples were loaded by electrostatic injection onto a Agilent CE 7100 instrument and separated on underivatised capillaries. uing the manufacturer’s conditions. The results are shown below: Nitrite 0.001 mg/L Nitrate 0.2 mg/L Phosphate 0.3 mg/L Article 3 – Liew B. S. & New J. Y. , BMS Reviews, 2012, 4, 20-39 “… we have analysed the waters of the Singapore River collected at low tide by ICP-OES Pb <0.002 ppb Sn 0.03 ppm Cd 0.05 ppb

21. Your Assignment – individual work required • PART A (Individual) -20% • PART B (Individual) – 40% • PART C (Submitted as a group) – 40% See Literature Review Assignment in 4PROJ in mel

22. Part A (20 marks) - Individual • This should be completed and submitted to your supervisor by Thursday 5 pm is held. • Any student who is absent from the seminar without a valid reason will not receive any marks for this part of the assignment. • The assignment will assess students on their ability to follow the Harvard style of citation. The Harvard style is the recommended style to be used for the final year report.

23. Part B (40 marks) - individual • Due 7 days after the day of the seminar. • Submit via e-mail or as a hard copy to your (NP) supervisor!! • Attach a copy of the references that you have used. • Description • Prepare a short literature review that introduces the main elements of your project. • Use the Harvard referencing system when citing literature • State what your project is about • Each group member must review 5 different relevant peer reviewed papers • Your review must not contain any www references. • Don’t just summarise • Compare and contrast where appropriate • Conclude the review with your project proposal

24. Part C (20 marks) – group work • After discussion with your internal supervisor, • Submit to your (NP) supervisor, a single integrated literature review • Due 10 days after the day of the seminar • Must be submitted through Mel via SafeAssign. • Any student or group found to have plagiarized will receive 0 marks for the assignment and may face disciplinary action according the rules of the polytechnic.